@SlowBoy's banner p

SlowBoy


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2023 April 01 14:25:53 UTC

				

User ID: 2303

SlowBoy


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2023 April 01 14:25:53 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 2303

You think a bank robber stealing money is a crime "more paltry" than posting text-to-vote election memes? This is disqualifying for your moral judgment.

That actually is not the argument, since he was convicted of conspiracy.

Right, when the government arrests you for sedition, they're not violating your 1A rights, because they technically charged you with sedition, not speech.

do agree with OP that 4900 possibly lost Democrat votes in NY

This isn't 4900 lost votes in NY, this is 4900 people who texted the number, total. The case has nothing to do with NY. They charged Ricky there because electronic cables under NY might have carried the tweets he sent.

But sending a strong message that election interference won't be tolerated seems like a reasonable enough thing for a democratic country that wants to maintain legitimacy.

That isn't what this is. They aren't charging FBI officials who lied about Russian interference with Hunter Biden's laptop. They aren't even charging other posters who made text-to-vote memes. This is selected and targeted. They used a statute that has never been enforced before to invent a new crime to charge someone for posting memes online. Illegitimate.

No one has ever been prosecuted before for posting text-to-vote memes. How could he have known it was illegal? They have enough laws and subclauses and fine print to make us all guilty of something.

there is concrete evidence that a large number of people were likely deceived and it seems extremely likely at least some of them would have actually voted but for the conduct undertaken.

The government could not find a single witness to testify this at trial. Nobody was harmed.

To add, I personally don't think he should have been charged and someone who fall for such a joke is too ill-informed to have a say, but I can see the rationale for charging him.

The justification is made-up. They aren't charging anyone else who posted text-to-vote memes. Next time, they'll invent new legal theories and government powers to arbitrarily charge someone else they don't like.

Had someone did this but targeting trump voters and had trump lost

Let's assume someone like Nayib Bukele had charged some people

The failure of people to apply their principles evenly/consistently is one of the problems I have with online-right.

"I made up some arguments in my head, and I don't like the answers I imagine you gave me. This is what I don't like about you."

"The legal basis" and "the crime" are completely made-up. These theories didn't exist before. If the government passes a law declaring pro-China sentiment equivalent to treason, I'm not going to take at face-value theories about this isn't chilling because "the First Amendment is a completely different issue". This is a recipe for negating the First Amendment: your speech isn't protected, because it {caused harm}.

If my vote is annulled in some manner, that is a harm that can never be remedied

Ricky's memes did not annul any votes and could not have annulled any votes.

I regret my support for former president Trump and I want him to withdraw from public life. Nixon had the decency to step down when his time was up.

That was Nixon's mistake. Plenty of politicians and presidents before and after did much worse than he did, and they stayed in the game. Obama sicced the IRS and DOJ on conservatives, Bush lied about Weapons of Mass Destruction to start a war, and Johnson did worse. Nixon participated in the cover-up of a break-in? Reagan's people participated in the cover-up of an operation to keep hostages in Iran until after Carter was defeated, and it worked.

Now that I'm writing this all out, I want to object that you're calling Trump a criminal because he's being charged with paperwork errors in paying a prostitute.

“Under New York state law, it is a felony to falsify business records with intent to defraud and intent to conceal another crime,” Bragg said in a news conference later Tuesday. “That is exactly what this case is about. Thirty-four false statements made to cover up other crimes. These are felony crimes in New York no matter who you are.”

Paperwork errors

Edit: Sorry, I don't want to sound antagonistic. I get that the point is that Trump tried to conceal his payments to Stormy Daniels. But they're not charging him with anything else. And the legal argument is that Trump hid a campaign contribution from himself to himself by paying for the NDA out of his own pocket. Bragg's legal argument would have to be totally different if Trump had expensed differently. Paperwork.

It was my understanding that Biden returned everything as soon as he realised he had it

And then they found more.

There was no conspiracy in 2016 or 2020 against Bernie Sanders

Tim Kaine is replaced as head of the DNC with Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who helped head Clinton's 2008 campaign, and then Tim Kaine is made Hillary's 2016 VP. The receipts were all leaked by WikiLeaks, which showed that the DNC did everything it could to ensure Hillary's win. (Donna Brazille even passed Hillary some debate questions in advance.) Tulsi Gabbard resigned in protest over it, and Debbie Wasserman Schultz was eventually made to resign over the controversy.

And whenever he actively serves himself, his supporters aren't going to lose face by admitting that the shady, egocentric wheel-and-dealer might have some self-interest.

Well, Trump is the only president to lose money in recent times. Maybe you can admit that Clinton, Obama, and Bush also "actively serve themselves"?

Whenever he fails to deliver on actual policy

People keep saying this, but Trump's policies meant my paycheck went up and illegal immigration went down. Maybe he could have done more if, cough cough, he hadn't been hamstrung by so many investigations and impeachments.

If they're going to prosecute Trump during primary season, his nomination is almost a foregone conclusion. People will crawl over broken glass to vote for him. He will run and be perceived as the only nominee who actually threatens TPTB. Every other Republican candidate will either have to stand with Trump and call the prosecution a sham, or piss off the Republican voters by saying Trump deserves to be prosecuted.

Anything can happen but if the primaries are about law and order, crime, politicizing justice, or draining the swamp, Trump wins by default. Maybe DOJ declares Trump a terrorist candidate and starts arresting his supporters. Maybe we go to war with Turkey and the voters want a military president. Anything can happen.

And if indicting a former president is a big deal, imagine if Trump is winning the primary but is forced out because Democrat judges and lawyers declare he's not allowed to run. Boy, if that happens, the chaos will make all this look small-fry.

It's a tough needle to thread. "My opponent, Donald Trump, is being persecuted by this sham indictment, but you shouldn't vote for him." Logically there's a case to be made but emotionally it doesn't really work. Very few politicians could make that work. Especially once Trump starts attacking them.

Having said that the Beeb is an interesting construct. Its funding mostly comes from the public by way of a government law for the License fee.

That's a synonym for "tax". The BBC isn't just government-funded, but has a special tax created just to keep it in existence.

And the independence of the BBC has been a great comedic punchline for decades now:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=B9tzoGFszog

Oh look Fox says the President is dead and here's his funeral, while CNN says the President is alive and here he is giving a speech.

This isn't going to happen. Information doesn't work like that. Pictures and videos don't pop into existence, so that no one can say what's real and what's not. Everything has a trail and receipts.

Joe Biden doesn't just apparate onto stage, declare that he's a lizardman in disguise, and then disappear into the ether. A Joe Biden speech comes with records. The White House would have announced his speech. Reporters and witnesses would have been in attendance. A video would be posted somewhere with Biden speaking before and after his hot remark.

We've had photoshop for a while now and it hasn't killed truth. We know when a celebrity's nudes are leaked and when they're fakes. Celebrities can post something embarrassing and claim they were hacked, and we know when they're full of shit. And it doesn't really happen that someone surfaces screenshots of old cancellable tweets, and it turns out to have been fake, and people shrug and say, "well, I guess we just can't know."

There are a lot of problems with consensus on the internet and AI deepfakes will create new information problems. But they don't really destroy the social mechanisms by which truth and consensus (or division) are built. If reddit gets taken over by neural bots making up nonsense, people will invent a new platform where that can't happen. Come to that, a lot of fake news gets believed by normal people anyways. The AI is unnecessary.

Yeah but once they establish these norms they will become tools to ban even more content. "You endorse the anti-Semitic conspiracy about George Soros?" "You are opposed to globalists?" And then criticizing Kamala Harris in the right way will count as "genocide denial".

I'm willing to give the creators the benefit of the doubt here. Many Americans really are just that ignorant about basic history. In communities like The Motte or 4chan or internet forums and history twitter there will be a few smart guys who know everything about Rome. We have a background literacy, even if most posters don't know much or care. Pop culture doesn't have this. The average person doesn't know much and doesn't care much.

This is why you should always wait until you have all the information before forming an opinion.

You will never have all the information. An impossible dream. Yesterday the incident happened, and people saw one set of facts, today charges are brought and more come out still, and tomorrow some new development will create new facts.

Republican voters love the stupidity, obnoxiousness, vulgarity, and simian chest-beating.

Instead of seeing Republican primary voters as concerned citizens seeking a voice, try to imagine them as chimps laying around under a canopy. They’ve chosen the alpha male.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, it's a lot of words, but Hanania may as well have written, "ooga booga you dumb" for all he's said. Wojak is at the Republican primary, standing in the corner, his feet hurt, I bet they don't even know how I've transcended simian instincts. This is just dumb, Hanania is arguing against a cartoon Republican he just made up in his head.

In 2020, we saw doctored videos of Pelosi slurring her words go viral on social media, and this shows not only how susceptible the Republican base is to fake news

Good morning, it's Sunday Morning.

These people started shooting beer cans with assault rifles because a company sent a six pack to a guy who acts like a sissy.

This is exceptionally dumb. In one paragraph Hanania is kvetching about media hyperreality, and in the very nexy sentence Hanania is using some video of some person shooting a beer can to characterize the whole Republican base. This is not an argument, it's gesticulsting, and it's not even well-informed gesticulating. (The word "imagined" is doing a lot of work in his argument: I can trivially find examples of Biden, Hillary, and Pelosi all having senior moments.)

If this is Hanania's usual stuff, then he's a pseud and deserves to be ignored.

Hanania can't credibly complain about the stupidity of the electorate if his argument is this stupid. OK, apparently the Trump people are stupid, but who else? I don't see Hanania saying that Biden voters are dumb, so Trump should speak to them by wearing a pantsuit.

Calling a specific group of people dumb, and then defending that by saying that everyone is dumb, is an extreme example of a bailey and motte.

Desantis would be crushing Trump if the R electorate was completly made up of themotte posters and National Review type right-wing intellectuals

Yeah, maybe, but the conservative base is extremely frustrated with "National Review type right-wing intellectuals" which doesn't mean that they're:

less engaged, less interested rightwing voters.

I mean, if you imagine yourself being like National Review pundits, I sincerely hope you pick higher ambitions.

His argument is dumb, and the idea that Ron DeSantis could challenge Trump to a boxing fight is dumb. People are not going to look at all five-foot-nine of Ron DeSantis proposing a boxing match as a political stunt and think, "Wow, this guy is the real alpha, now I like him more than Trump". It's facile. Is this really what people want? Dumb arguments dressed up in rationalist costumes?

Sure, maybe Hanania was Just Pretending To Be Retarded. But it wouldn't be a very good defense of what he's written. Either he's stupid on accident, or on purpose!

Maybe the lights are on -- but nobody's home!

Come on, I've seen videos od Joe Biden saying that America "could be defined in a single word," Hillary Clinton having a seizure, and Nancy Pelosi rambling about Sunday Morning. Hanania wants to pose with some tough love tells-it-like-it-is bravado, but it's all an act. He's clearly ignorant of what he's talking about.

What would it take for them to abandon Trump, if his demonstrable political ineptitude, lack of gratitude or respect for his base, ugly and self-defeating tantrums, immaturity so pronounced one has to suspect it's affected etc. – did not?

The only one here disrespecting Trump's base is Hanania. Why would Trump supporters care what Hanania thinks when he's expressed nothing but contempt for them? By the same logic, why should I care what you think of me?

Way to prove him correct. Did you feel clever when writing it? Or did you feel Based?

It's fair game if this is how Hanania wants to play. We need to trick Trump supporters by looking masculine and tough? OK then, Hanania is a pale nerd who looks like he could barely bench the bar.

Oh, right, Hanania doesn't believe that applies to himself because he and his audience are the smart crowd, teehee, we're not boorish and vulgar like those populists. That's the problem, Hanania's argument isn't an argument, it's contempt disguised as an argument. There is no intellectual content, it's all attitude, it's about looking like an intellectual, by looking down on people who aren't trying to look intellectual.