EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
I know what you're here for. What's his bias? Politically I at least like to think of myself as a true moderate, maybe (in US context) slightly naturally right-leaning but currently politically left-leaning if I had to be more specific.
User ID: 1043
Personally I tend to think that both the Colbert firing and the Kimmel firing were partly in result to Trump admin pressure...
...but that reason, while true, wasn't at all the main reason. We heard Colbert's show was losing money regularly, and I imagine Kimmel's was too (although it's possible some Colbert defectors propped it up for a bit so may not have been recently the case, dunno there), so I believe both networks saw it as a win-win situation.
(The Kimmel quote in question is incredibly weak sauce, though. At worst he's accusing Republicans of being murderers, but that seems like a logical stretch of language. He's wrong on the facts of course but it's not like I have a high bar for comedy-ish monologues of the political issues de jour)
Am I worried about this kind of press pressure? Yes. I'm not, like, apocalyptically worried, just normal worried. I'm currently sort of on the train of thought that even if Trump 2.0 is followed by another Republican, I'm not sure these absurdities will continue. My mental model of the Trump admin is roughly that a ton of loose, low-qualified cannons running around using Trump's formidable political cover are going buck wild on their own personal pet issues and Trump doesn't care too much as long as it can be spun positively on TV, or gives off "we are strong" vibes.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
28d ago
I seem to recall that in at least one of the alleged Discord group[s?], someone thought the photo looked like him and they joked about it. That implies that at least that group more broadly wasn't aware. I presume it's possible a Discord friend helped him on a more individual basis, but nothing other than maybe the questioner really required any help. In fact, he literally used a drop spot for the rifle, so I'd assume an actual accomplice would have been ready to grab it - actually would have been smart, or even worked, since no cameras covered the area and the other person would have looked different, though transportation would still be risky. Kirk's last questioner was interviewed and seemed innocent to me, despite affiliation with a group that usually hounds Kirk with gotchas allegedly he wasn't doing so on that particular day, though I supposed given the context and timing it's possible (OTOH, it's a right-wing AMA, of course guns are going to come up and probably trans issues too at some point no matter who has the mic).
The texts suggest that he really thought there was a good chance he'd get away with it. He was maybe loosely correct, but criminals of all types often forget that they have more human connections, even when loners, than you might think. Plus witnesses are everywhere in a manhunt, and he seems to literally not have planned for cameras (I mean come on dude, there are ALWAYS cameras somewhere, and an accomplice probably would have said as much). The grandpa recognized the rifle, and at least three people that we know of instantly thought it looked like him based on the pictures only.
The lone caveat then is I don't think we were told exactly how he got back home to Washington county - one report I believe mentioned a vehicle, but it wasn't clear if they actually matched its location to anywhere relevant that day, or found out where he parked, etc. I suppose someone could have driven him?
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
28d ago
Do you think that a mommy-mentality or "egalitarian therapy culture" would have been more effective in terms of pure politics?
It might be a question of methods. I think to most Democrats being a good person for selfless and societal reasons was part of the messaging, but were they "gentle and firm"? Seems to me that the mainstream left decided that shame and blame was more effective. They were, of course, almost completely wrong on medium- and long-term time horizons, though not the short-term one.
However, it's undeniable that some parts of his plan did get implemented. When he says "government is about 'necessities' – health, education, housing, protection, jobs with living wages, and so on – not about “programs.” Economic success lies in human well-being, not in stock prices, or corporate and bank profits" that does sound pretty familiar to me! Another weak point: he theorizes that it's impossible to be all talk but no action. He says "language use, over and over, affects how citizens understand policy choices, which puts pressure on legislators, and ultimately affects what policies are chosen," but is that really true? Did a shifted linguistic landscape around housing, education, health, jobs, etc. lead to matching policies? Biden Democrats would say yes, but that they simply were too modest to take credit (or that people were too dumb to give them that credit). I kind of think no, and that's where maybe it all falls apart for me - I don't think I'm really a Lakoff acolyte. Messaging does frame the issue, but I don't think I buy the value-shift theory. Or to be more precise, backlash from a mismatch between values and action (even if perceived and not truly real) overwhelms any incremental gains provided by the linguistic landscape of the fight. As I like to say, betrayal is actually one of the most powerful emotions (and voters are really fairly good at sniffing out bullshit).
Yet I wonder. DO we in fact have a shifted attitude toward some of these issues? Health care yes! Conservatives were very resistant to "health care is a human right" but I think that attitude is everywhere now. People are less sympathetic to corporations, even if deregulation still has lots of appeal. Social spending they maybe even went backwards; he says "Social Security and Medicare are earned" but today that reads like a GOP talking point. I assume he's pretty unhappy with the current landscape, although I don't really know - but if so, who does he blame? Centrists, or progressives?
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
28d ago
Horseshoe theory suggests that there actually were some significant similarities between the Communist and Nazi methods and tactics, and there were, though of course you could argue all day about how much was deliberate or temporary vs inevitable due to their opposing radical positions. And, you know, although they didn't outright nationalize industries they did adopt a sort of command economy... although war quickly messed up the politics from its "natural" internal course, and it's not like the regime lasted so long outside of war, so I really don't see it as a fair trial of his point. (Also, it's not like there were lots of fair elections either in that narrow pre-war period we can look at)
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
28d ago
TL;DR: see the bullet points at the end
Today, let's talk an old article and see if it still has relevance. Way downthread when talking about language, I was reminded of one of the language influencers of the left, George Lakoff. A linguistics professor by trade, he wrote a number of books, two which I'll mention briefly: "Moral Politics" in 1996, where he argued conservatives and liberals differed in their emotional and subconscious attitude towards government, and "Don't Think of an Elephant!" in 2004 as a rough guidebook accompanying his progressive think-tank, where he argued that the linguistic framing of the debate often would often determine who would win. Conservatives think of government like a strong and strict parent who needs to strictly raise their citizen-kids into more-responsible adults, then be hands-off from there, he argued. Liberals, however, think the government is and should be a nurturing parent, promoting good virtues and protecting against corruption and badness that encompass various common ills of society. Lakoff thought that liberals were often losing because they were using conservative linguistic frameworks. He was especially active in trying to push a certain brand of linguistics during the Bush years, but upon the 2008 crash his think tank collapsed and he more or less retired at 67.
However, for today, the year is 2011 and he comes out to pen one more article with some advice. Enter The “New Centrism” and Its Discontents. The event he's worked up about? Obama's 2011 State of the Union, with whom he disagrees about political tactics. Please note that any emphasis is purely my own.
There is no ideology of the “center.” What is called a “centrist” or a “moderate” is actually very different – a biconceptual, someone who is conservative on some issues and progressive on others, in many, many possible combinations. Why does this matter? From the perspective of how the brain works, the distinction is crucial.
Because we think with our brains, all thought is physical. Our moral and political worldviews are realized as brain circuits with strong synapses. If you have two conflicting worldviews, you have two brain circuits that are mutually inhibitory, so that when one is activated, it is strengthened and the other is shut off and weakened. When a worldview applies to a given issue, there is a neural binding circuit linking the worldview circuit to that issue circuit in such a way that the issue is understood in terms of that worldview. The right language will activate that issue as understood via that worldview. Using that language strengthens that worldview.
When a Democrat “moves to the center,” he is adopting a conservative position – or the language of a conservative position. Even if only the language is adopted and not the policy, there is an important effect. Using conservative language activates the conservative view, not only of the given issue, but the conservative worldview in general, which, in turn, strengthens the conservative worldview in the brains of those listening. That leads to more people thinking conservative thoughts, and, hence, supporting conservative positions on issues and conservative candidates. Material policy matters. Language use, over and over, affects how citizens understand policy choices, which puts pressure on legislators, and ultimately affects what policies are chosen. Language wars are policy wars.
He goes on to argue that while many Obama-style Democrats were using the playbook of using friendly-sounding packaging to sell good liberal policies, that this was bound to backfire dramatically as the packaging would become the product - or perhaps more accurately, the framing determined the (often hostile) battlefield. Well, wait, actually it's worse - he thinks that to some extent, fighting wars of words on hostile territory actually pushes moderate voters to the right in a sort of self-reinforcing cycle! He thinks not just that politics is a value conflict, but that the fight itself shifts the power of the players. This was a little bit new to me.
Conservatives are trained not to use the language of liberals. Liberals are not so trained. Liberals have to learn not to stick to their own language, and not move rightward in language use. Never use the word “entitlement” – Social Security and Medicare are earned. Taking money from them is stealing. Pensions are delayed payments for work already done. They are part of contracted pay for work. Not paying pensions is taking wages from those who have earned them. Nature isn’t free for the taking. Nature is what nurtures us, and is of ultimate value – human value as well as economic value. Pollution and deforestation are destroying nature. Privatization is not eliminating government – it is introducing government of our lives by corporations, for their profit, not ours. The mission of government is to protect and empower all citizens, because no one makes it on their own. And the more you get from government, the more you owe morally. Government is about “necessities” – health, education, housing, protection, jobs with living wages, and so on – not about “programs.” Economic success lies in human well-being, not in stock prices, or corporate and bank profits. These are truths. We need to use language that expresses those truths.
I found this especially interesting. He thinks that conservatives are really good at using the right language, partly through what elsewhere in the article he describes as a far better and more organized (or at least, disciplined) media ecosystem. Is he right? Do liberals regularly lose the language framing wars among moderates and swing voters, and thus the battle, even before they begin?
Obama’s new centrism must be viewed from the perspective of biconceptualism. In his Tucson speech, Obama started off with the conservative view of the shooting. It was a crazy, lone gunman, unpredictable, there should be no blame – as if brain-changing language did not exist. It sounded like Sarah Palin. But at the end, he became the progressive of his election campaign, bringing back the word “empathy” and describing American democracy as essentially based on empathy, social responsibility, striving for excellence and public service. This is the progressive moral worldview, believed implicitly by all progressives, but hardly ever explicitly discussed.
Whoa. Brain-changing language is quite a claim. This caught my eye a little bit because of how it makes at least a theoretically-grounded factual case for language as a thing that influences people on a physical level. Is he to be believed? I have my doubts about the scientific application, but it was interesting to see this discussion happen in 2011. However, that's not an accident! Obama was, in the referenced Tuscon speech, speaking soon after the Gabrielle Giffords shooting that is now seen as one of the earliest examples of political assassinations now frequently discussed. If language usage choices rewire the brain, are we actually to blame, at least in part, for these kinds of shootings? (I hope I'm not misrepresenting his point here)
"[Obama] is now Mr. Reasonable Centrist – except that in substance there is no reasonable center to be had. A well funded and tightly organized right wing has been pulling American politics to the right for three decades now. And with a few instructive exceptions, Democrats who respond by calling for a new centrism are just acting as the right’s enablers. What exactly is the beneficial substance of this centrism? Just how far right do we have to go for Republicans to cut any kind of deal? Isn’t the mirage of a Third Way a series of moving targets – where every compromise begets a further compromise?" [NB: This quote is lifted wholesale from a column by Robert Kuttner, a progressive writer]
Kuttner has good reason to feel this way. The conservative moral worldview has a highest principle: to preserve, defend and advance that worldview itself. Radical conservatives have taken over the Republican party. Their goal is to make the country – and the world – as conservative as they are. They want to impose strict father morality everywhere. In economics it means laissez-fair capitalism, with the rich seen as the most disciplined, moral and deserving of people, and the poor as undisciplined and unworthy of safety nets. In religion, their God as the punitive strict father God, sending you to heaven or hell depending how well you adhere to conservative moral principles – individual not social responsibility, strict authority, punitive law, the use of overwhelming force in defending conservative moral principles, and so on. Big government is fine when used to those ends, but not when used to social ends. Only “spending” on measures to help people should be cut, not the use of money to fund what conservative morality approves of. The concern for the deficit is a ruse. They regularly support ideas that would raise, not lower the deficit. Science is to be believed if new weapons systems are based on it, but not if it shows that human pollutants are causing global warming and disastrous climate change.
In a way, this seems pretty prescient. According to progressives, at least (and certainly others) radical conservatives did take over the Republican party, and they did espouse authority and overwhelming force to punish the unworthy and the enemies, and they did use the deficit as a ruse, and they did have a uniquely selective approach to which science to believe. It's all over the news these last few months. As a pretty classic centrist myself, that feels like a pretty damning indictment, if true. Is it true? And even if he's wrong, does he have some useful advice?
The "progressive" solution
He ends by giving essentially a nice bullet-point list of things that progressives need to do. (I should note that there is some question as to whether 2011-era progressives are the same group as 2025 ones, so maybe it's best to consider it more broadly). If you read nothing else, this is his thesis, distilled.
- First, they have to recognize the reality of biconceptualism. Adopting conservative language helps conservatism. Adopting conservative programs makes the world more conservative and, so, helps drive empathy from the world, and that is disastrous.
- Second, progressives should recognize that the business of America is business – that there are successful businesses and businesspeople with progressive values, and they should be praised and courted – and separated from radical conservatives.
- Third, progressives have to organize around a single morality, centered on empathy, both personal and social responsibility and excellence – being the best person you can be, not just for your own sake, but for the sake of you family, community and nation. All politics is moral; it is about the right things to do. Get your morality straight, learn to talk about it, then work on policy. It is patriotic to be progressive.
- Fourth, progressives must understand the critical need for a communication system that rivals the conservative system: An overall understanding of conservatism, effective framing of progressive beliefs and real facts, training centers on understanding and articulating progressive thought, systems of spokespeople on call, booking agencies to book speakers on radio and tv, and in local venues like schools, churches and clubs.
- Fifth, it is progressive to be firm, articulate and gentle. You can stand up for what you believe, while being gentlemanly and ladylike.
- Sixth, progressives have to get over the idea that conservatives are either stupid, or mean or greedy – or all three. Conservatives are mostly people who have a different moral system from progressives.
A new centrism that makes sense ought to be one that unifies progressives under a single moral system centered on empathy; that recognizes, and shows respect for, the progressive side of biconceptuals; that respects the intelligence of conservatives; that allies with progressive businesspeople as well as with unions; that builds a communication system that brings it in touch with most Americans; that calls upon the love of nature; that is gentle and firm; and that refuses to move to the right, either in language or action.
Again, strong language. Conservatism drives empathy from the world? Uncharitable, but I can kind of see it. My parents originally flipped from Republican to Democrat, even as religious social conservatives, because in the words of my dad, "they at least pretend to care about poor people, but the Republicans don't even try". There's some pragmatism here, even among the moralization, for finding good allies. His vision of morality as the wellspring of progressive vision is an interesting one that I think partially got lost in the political noise, though I'm unsure how well it would work in practice. Most of all, though, the sixth bullet point has almost objectively been flagrantly violated in the last decade. Support Trump? You must be stupid, or mean, or shortsighted. Different values? No, clearly you just didn't see all the facts. If nothing else, I think for Democrats to get their mojo back, that probably has to change. You can't persuade someone you don't even understand.
What do you think? Is he right about language choices molding the political conversation and even changing values themselves via mere reinforcement? Should Democrats focus on long-term value-change strategies? Even if he's wrong, would you appreciate a Democratic party following his six proposals? Are "progressives" still losing the language battle? Food for thought.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
28d ago
I feel like you may be projecting a lot of meaning into it. To some extent all groups do this. I work in data science and boy let me tell you, buzzwords come into vogue so fast it makes your head spin. Famously kids often invent new vocab or participate in language trends on purpose to signal ingroup status and awareness, but adults do it too, and not exclusively politically. It’s not usually deliberate, it’s life.
It’s also inconsistent that you think that re-introducing a previously more rare word dumbs down language. Isn’t an expanded vocabulary usually a sign of higher level language, not lower? It’s not as if “legislator” or “senator” or what have you are less popular or obsolete, much less low status to say.
Don’t get me wrong: focus group messaging firms do impact political word choice. I can even name drop one (though a Republican): Frank Luntz. But they don’t always work, and don’t always show up. He pushed for energy exploration instead of oil drilling in a 2003 memo, and climate change instead of global warming in a 2002 memo, but as far as I can see, neither actually wholly replaced the other and although the choice might signal something, it’s not so obvious. In fact climate change actually got adopted by the left!
A sort-of peer of his on the left, the don’t think about an elephant guy George Lakoff, pushed stuff like climate crisis/emergency instead, and public option vs government healthcare, and stuff like that. Not all were so enduring. Yes, the 2016-2023 era had a decent amount of leftist word policing of “bad” words, but that’s not related or analogous to this objection at all. Your radar is misfiring.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
28d ago
I commented above, but it’s nothing so nefarious (probably) - the AP’s influence on news headlines does a lot of heavy lifting. Idiosyncratic phrases and rare synonyms can easily become popular in bursts.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
28d ago
I mean zoom out the graph and the baseline rate sees a very small gradual rise. Part of the issue is that the AP News wording is more viral than you’d think and more news outlets than you’d expect outright copy headlines in some form. (Or plagiarize)
It’s definitely Jan 6, 2021 that is when it starts going. Again, copy and paste I strongly suggest is the issue! This is non representative but contains some front pages on Jan 7: I stopped counting at 30 front pages, but exactly 20 of them mention “lawmakers” in bold headings. Phrases repeat suspiciously: “lawmakers duck for cover” dominates, and variants like “lawmakers hunker down” and even “lawmakers duck to find cover”, “lawmakers are forced into hiding”, etc. and sure enough, AP News article from the evening of J6 (I assume the date is wrong, shows J5 on the website which is clearly impossible) has “forced lawmakers into hiding” in the first paragraph. AP is a news wire service, by the way, deliberately designed for this purpose; and yes, I think it’s harmful to press freedom and true expression because the coordination effect is too large (popular however because it saves $$ since local papers are encouraged to basically paraphrase rather than write fresh copy, meaning fewer man hours and even more so the case when on a time crunch).
To me it’s a somewhat memetic natural process from there among the smallish club of news headline writers, with spikes on particular popular topics or articles. That’s why you see weird patterns, I actually expect such, precisely because of the AP (Reuters also has a similar effect but smaller).
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
28d ago
They did just release a few more details including a few more about his texts with his lover-roommate as well as a few bits from the parents. His mom thought he looked like the shooter and called him to see where he was! She was apparently the source for the quote about a previous expression of dislike for Kirk by name, and allegedly he had tussled with his dad over his Trumpism, plus there was a religious-cultural deal about gay and trans rights (sometimes that’s exclusively religious so I don’t want to read too much into it, but seems to line up) party spurred we assume by his confirmed-transitioning roommate. He’s absolutely left wing and I think that’s pretty clear. What kind of left wing? Very much still TBD. You’re right in the sense that we don’t know how much of a normie Dem he was, or if he was something way more niche.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
28d ago
It’s my eternal disappointment that Romney ran in 2012 and not 2016. He would have been fantastic in that moment in my opinion. Not a realistic hypothetical because he also ran in 2008 primaries, but Obama was a monster and I think Romney would have done pretty well in most other times and against most other candidates (maybe even 2008, ironically! I could see people trusting him more to handle the financial meltdown that was just starting to happen in the middle of election season than McCain was, who didn’t really seem to have a clue)
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
28d ago
Sort of? I’m not a super Roman expert so I could be wrong and welcome corrections, but IIRC Augustus himself in practice spent a lot of time fighting in the several civil wars after the assassination. He was also patient and clever and politically savvy not to rush things or look too dictatorial? I was also kind of under the impression that by the time he was firmly in control it had been like a century of unrest and many of the big players already had played their hands so the Senate was already weak in practical terms not just because of legal or political maneuvers. Even then, it took like 40 years of rule to solidify things, so to me it looks more like good timing and skill of one rather than his approach necessarily being better, but again I could be wrong.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
28d ago
Eh, kinda, but mostly not. To me the “hole” in OP’s setup is we aren’t really told how effective the intrinsic presumed bias towards free speech the government itself has. I think that plays a major role in how it all games out: does party A actually and factually use their time in power to effectively muzzle free speech? Is it an attempt but one that usually fails? How complete is their control, and how effectively does it get reversed if party B shows up?
So you can’t really escape some degree of fact and truth that affects the answer. (Also, point 4 is actually a good one that potentially puts a big thumb on the scale, despite the timeframes required for the benefits to mature and deliver)
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
30d ago
Upon reflection I probably overstated my case honestly. (I do think it’s a major issue but not one they are paying lots of attention to).
They do say it indirectly though. Maybe a good barometer would be these statements back in February for DNC chair, on what they’d do differently. The eventual winner said they did too well among the wealthy and college voters, systemically, and that they needed more local election focus too.
Another said less democracy talk and more economic talk, and door knocking was overrated. The last said more social media work and rely less on people who watch the news.
So few people are saying it directly I guess but it’s latent underneath a lot of these ideas: that the machine is out of touch.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
30d ago
Blown up no,not so dramatic, but it did hollow out the political consultant class in the Democratic Party machine of a lot of talent, which was basically one of the main contributors to Harris’ loss. This is pretty widely conceded as a primary cause even among hardcore mainstream Democrats. Because the woke purges happened to apply disproportionately to non-college educated younger staffers, they were left with disproportionately college educated young staffers, which ironically creates a blind spot that theoretically DEI was supposed to fix (it just replaced one with another, so to speak)
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
30d ago
It’s always been a bit of a thing for sure, but I think the commenter above is referring to the Cold War era where right wing actors added “under God” to the Pledge, and stuff like that. Also around the same time the first Catholic was President and begrudgingly accepted as also OK.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
30d ago
Actually a good example of why, assuming your theory is correct, like I discussed a week or two ago here, the correct game theory approach of relevance is usually “tit for tat… with occasional forgiveness” and not outright tit for tat. It is, of course, hard to tell when forgiveness is appropriate and in what ratio, but it does need to happen occasionally.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
30d ago
I have actually been thinking about this recently in some sense. For example, school shootings.
It is a FACT that you are more likely to die driving your way home from work than in a school shooting (I haven’t examined this in a more rigorous way but think it still would be true). We would call someone afraid to drive home irrational because it impacts your quality of life quite a bit. Yet if I tell a liberal friend of mine that it’s in the best interests of students to play down (even if inaccurately!) the threat of school shootings because the net cost of generalized fear to learning is worse, they look at me like I’m crazy. But I’m pretty sure I’m right, and I’m also pretty sure that in a few decades people will agree with me.
Humans are not designed to live in a a constant state of fear. It’s physically and psychologically damaging. This is incontrovertible. Kids in particular are way too good at picking up the “vibes” of adults. So honestly everyone who works with kids should be extra vigilant about what vibes they give out. If kids feel “permission” to feel constant fear, that unhealthy.
I realize this might not be what you mean when talking about promoting “antifragility” but it seemed related to me. There’s some line where we cross over from being understanding and empathetic to losing a certain degree of thick skin necessary. Just like how phobias are worsened by validating them.
Semi-caveat to teaching “thick skin”: research indicates that teaching children the world is safe, just, interesting, that people are fundamentally nice, etc. improves their life outcomes. It turns out that at least when establishing base primal beliefs, in aggregate there is no such thing as teaching a child to have a too-positive outlook having a drawback (kids tend use these rosy beliefs more like a prior than a rule, which limits downsides).
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
30d ago
What is the justification in your eyes under this paradigm for a line between assassination support and riot support?
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
30d ago
I think one core idea here is that it used to be the case that a company could get reputational damage. But nowadays it seems like these cases are less and less “organic”. (Dovetails a bit with less organic virality in general). Like maybe in the past someone who got spontaneously famous would need to be cut loose. But when groups dedicate time to hunting down each and every offender? That’s just morality police, empowered with governmental-adjacent power, but without governmental guardrails. A bad state of affairs.
There’s also some conflation of what makes you a good human (don’t celebrate murder) vs what is human but shows a lack of tact (expressing true feelings of ambivalence about a murder) vs what is human but normally acceptable (half-private venting on supposed friend networks) vs what is possibly not even a genuine value statement at all (people feel “out of control” of the political trajectory and sometimes cope poorly with that feeling, saying things they may not truly mean in the heat of the moment).
And celebrities are already subject to a degree of dehumanization: Taylor Swift, Korean idols, etc all have people way up in their personal lives and even normal fans can display at times sociopathic tendencies and expressions. If you have Kirk in the mental bucket of “celebrity” and not “father to two young children” of course your conduct will be different! Frankly no one got fired if they celebrate Michael Jackson dying, whether they thought he was a creep and a predator, or a misunderstood star with a broken childhood. Yet politics, we are told, is different. That’s a little true (threatening democratic processes is more long term destabilizing to future democratic processes), but it’s not completely true!
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
30d ago
Obviously cancel culture works both ways now. Not new. When Trump was first almost assassinated, you may remember a video of a Home Depot worker which always struck me. Lady is middle aged and working the front desk - actually already one of the most thankless positions, as a former employee there - and is confronted by a guy filming who looked up her social media on his own time before. She basically just asks him to leave. But still, fired. That one stuck in my memory because it felt like an especially low blow, not like someone more professional with more job security, but a true near-minimum wage worker.
But it was recently pointed out to me that the beginnings of what might be termed cancel culture (less individualized but still targeted pressure campaigns) were way earlier. Remember Christian groups trying to cancel different movies because of inappropriate content? Certain songs, company actions too. Actually plenty of moral crusades going back even farther. And the left of course had the apartheid boycott, Vietnam era protest against officials and companies supporting the war, or certain college speakers, stuff like that.
This makes me think that in some fashion it’s more about social media itself than any deliberate action by the left or right in particular. Somewhat supporting this is how when Twitter was left dominated? Lots of leftist cancelling. Now that X is right dominated? Lots of rightist cancelling.
So to me I really don’t think it makes sense to adopt a paradigm of “they did it first”, on neither side. I used to think otherwise, but the longer I see it go on all over, the more I suspect it’s a human nature meets new technology problem. It could be that social media becomes the new workplace in terms of banal corporate-speak and circumspection.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
1mo ago
All this makes me wonder all the more about the shooter. He used a bolt action hunting rifle, and fired when Kirk was asked about gun violence, killed no one else, and successfully escaped the scene. However it’s not clear how many, if any, of the previous were conscious, or even pre-planned, decisions. Was the intention in one or all of those aspects to try and mold conversation in some fashion? On some level most shooters or assassins have become aware that their survival rate is usually not very good, and that they will be at some point over-analyzed by the media. There is rising meta-awareness there. And also, the basic of “get on roof with scoped gun” is in fact absurdly effective, apparently even against presidents, though most people smart enough to realize this are smart enough not to do it.
This is, in some very real sense, a trap. If you ask me, both science/psychology AND politics demands that if this keeps happening, the best solution is actually something like this: form some kind of loose compact, whether between individuals or news media or whatever, to focus on victims and not give shooters the time of day. Show, don’t tell, the stories of bereaved family; show, don’t tell, the good parts of the person shot; show, don’t just tell, the harm this causes bystanders. I’m pretty sure that although a handful of would be shooters are true sickos, a good chunk of them are still vulnerable to this kind of appeal. Sort of like suicide prevention, glorification or even just painting it in a literary light is bad - focus on how family and friends will be sad is good.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
1mo ago
I have an effortpost cooking - probably in a week or two - about different philosophies about secession and which of them provide cover for violence. Which touches some similar topics, but it’s not ready yet.
For now I want to emphasize that large-group action (the kind that leads to revolutions and such) is dramatically different in its dynamics and political philosophy than individual or small-group action (lone shooters through Weather Underground type groups). I think this is under-appreciated. A large group usually has more of a deliberative process, even if flawed, while individuals and small groups can get swept away by mental illness, a charismatic leader, or an extreme emotional reaction to a specific event or person in a way bigger groups who are actually capable of making more considered decisions do not. For example, the American Revolution had pretty strong buy-in across colonies and delegates were sent in many cases directly by legislatures to form what would eventually become the Continental Congress.
I think one possible more minor way to evaluate: is violence mostly for “attention” or similar? If so, 99%+ of the time this is terrorism, a bad thing, and often counterproductive to boot. You’re very rarely “defending” anything with violence in any real way. At least in most Western democratic countries, that is.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
1mo ago
Speaking purely factually, I’m pretty sure killing Kirk a few years ago might have had an impact, but now? Trump 2.0? Turning Point is already established and has infrastructure, it will live fine without Kirk. Like 98% of all assassinations, it will backfire (assuming some kind of liberal did it). Martyrdom is pretty strong and it consistently surprises me that assassins don’t seem to get that (and the more personal-grudge types aren’t that common in recent years)
A 5D chess player might do it in purpose if they wanted political strife. Kirk abused the hell out of the super PAC rules, but I always approved of him in a loose sense (despite strong policy disagreement) because he was definitely a “work within the system” type.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
1mo ago
Since Trump is personally involved and also mad, he’s going to pressure the FBI to step in more, and they will do the thing where they comb through tons of video footage and such. I give it maybe 85% odds they catch him, but that includes taking a few weeks to do so.
Not OP but I think it's an open question as to whether the number of Trump's lies, in absolute terms, is greater or less than other politicians, but I don't really think it's too important to close it with an answer, I don't care about it per se.
However, it seems completely obvious that the lies he tells are particularly... maybe "brazen" is the right word? Like in real life people tell white lies, and usually don't get caught. Trump tells white lies, and regularly does get caught, when prior presidents and many other public figures are often careful enough that they, on the whole, seem to lay off the white lies (silence works pretty well for most administrations, in fact almost equally as well in situations where a white lie would otherwise attempt to hide an awkward truth, they both hide it in effect).
The usual defense amounts to one of three things: 1) Trump's words were hyperbole or maybe technically incorrect, but the broader truth is correct so the precise verbiage doesn't matter, 2) Trump was just relaying his understanding based on other reports/TV/hearsay, and any incorrectness is a simple lack of due diligence, which is fine because again his broader points are correct and people can be wrong sometimes, 3) Well if you look at what he said earlier or later or some other day, that clarifies things, that's what he really meant, obviously he was just riffing off that, and we should kind of average all his statements. No particular word, phrase, or claim ever has absolute meaning.
You know, honestly I was lowkey fine with this during election season, and in a number of cases I defended Trump (!) by saying that in an election it really does matter more what people hear than what you say. We all even expect it, fact-checker mania or no. However, I (and most liberals and even most centrists even despite any biases) think that when governing the words you say have special meaning. We can't and shouldn't be guessing. It's not like the Bible where reasonable people can disagree if X scripture is literal or metaphorical or symbolic or something in between! A word has meaning. Sometimes flexible, but all meanings can be stretched so far as to break. As an example, Trump said the fired BLS chief "rigged" the numbers. That means something, and it's not a Biblical interpretation situation. Factually, by any definition, Trump was wrong. She did not rig the numbers. End of story. The End. There is no wiggle room there. So which is it, 1, 2, or 3? They have some partial explanatory power. I admit that. But they do not actually change the lie.
It's the President and he has a responsibility. Sure, Presidents lie. Some have told some really, really big whoppers. But by and large, as I said above, that's usually about the big stuff. Trump's statements are frequently wrong about the small stuff.
How bad is one versus the other? Hypothetically is it better to have a habitual fibber who is honest about the big stuff, or a charming fact-wielding guy hiding a devastating betrayal? I have no firm opinion, and to be fair it's a little bit of new territory, and with a yet-unwritten and unrevealed history to match. Will we discover a Trump Iran-Contra under our noses and thus have the worst of both worlds? Does anything so far count? No one can say yet for sure.
However, I think the small lies have spread such an atmosphere of distrust that it's creating a low-trust dynamic between the public and the President that is almost unprecedented outside of wartime (when frankly the President is semi-allowed to tell white lies IMO). I think it's justified to be dismayed about that and worried about it. Because there's a significantly wide, if not deep, "interaction surface" on the utterings of Presidents to the public. They are literally the most newsworthy person in the world, so a lot gets transmitted. Trump's white lies, even if that's really all they are (not a given but let's roll with it), do immense damage to this trust. Suddenly, rather than more limited debates about whether the government is telling the truth about specific and big things, we suddenly are expected to guess whether the government is telling the truth about small things, tiny things, mundane things. We are expected to produce custom weighted-average factual conclusions based on contradictory government information releases. That's exhausting.
Conservatives aren't really bothered by this because they mostly have delegated their decision-making to Trump and his administration, since they trust that he will not betray them overall, so the small stuff is almost irrelevant. They even tend to enjoy Trump cynically playing with those assumptions to make the traditional media dance to his pleasure. But if you put yourself in anyone else's shoes, it's a pretty terrible state of affairs.
A lot of right-wingers around here like to spread this whole idea of high and low trust societies. Okay, fine. Here is a mini-society, and Trump is almost singlehandedly making it a low-trust relation full of perpetual suspicion and mistrust. Maybe he's "owning the libs", but at what cost?
More options
Context Copy link