drmanhattan16
No bio...
User ID: 640
drmanhattan16
2yr ago
If this is your standard, then a politician will never be able to praise their voters if some of those voters includes people who participated in a political riot. Given the summer of 2020 and the Capitol riots, that's practically everyone.
My standard is not that you can't praise your voters, only that we shouldn't pretend your voters may include the anti-social and criminal. I would agree that those people by and large don't define any particular voter base.
drmanhattan16
2yr ago
No, I dispute this interpretation entirely. When the ADL says that new platforms risk being subject to the same fate, it's pretty obvious they're referring to what they perceive as a rise in anti-semitic posts. The only way you can dispute this is if you ignore the chain of tweets that one is situated in.
Whatever problems you may have with the ADL and their actions, the example tweet you chose does a very poor job of making your point.
drmanhattan16
1yr ago
That thread is by far the most popular ever on that subreddit, and lists evidence that IH is a Nazi. I’d summarize the evidence as “IH has a 4-chany sense of humor, has made some edgy jokes, and **follows mainstream conservatives on Twitter.**”
The issue with the bolded part is that that's not a defense. In particular, the ones they cite are Libs Of Tik Tok, Gavin McInnes, and Ron Desantis. You could maybe excuse Desantis, but you still have to grapple with the question of whether mainstream conservatism itself moved in the direction of Nazism in recent years, which is probably something IH's accusers don't have any issue believing. They might be wrong, but it's not a trivially dismissed point of evidence.
For instance, many of the evidence points are that IH has made jokes in his videos about Nazis and the KKK. In one video, he put 14/88 in the background
You're improperly summarizing the actual point that post made - The game being referenced where he put "14/88" in doesn't allow values for that field if they aren't divisible by 5. He had to choose that number.
These arguments strike me as so divorced from reality that it’s difficult to bridge the gap. These jokes are not actually making light of Hitler, Nazis, and the KKK.
This is a valid defense, but it's impossible to prove just from IH's actions where he actually stands on the topic, and so you can't tell he's saying these things to just mock the left or he's doing it because he's inserting what he actually thinks as jokes. It's not an unheard of strategy - Nick Fuentes has a clip of him saying that humor was a way to promote his brand of politics and that he couldn't obviously be forthcoming about what he actually believed.
I've watch IH's videos, including the ones mentioned in the post you linked. The Bike-lock professor one was straight up "4chan does good thing by catching attacker" and mocks neopronouns at the beginning of the video. Which part of this is mocking the lefties?
Ultimately, IH needs to cease his policy of silence and be forthcoming - both about the plagiarizing and where his actual politics stand. That's inherently the burden you take on when you aren't in the Overton Window. That applies to literally anything a person does.
drmanhattan16
2yr ago
What is the BBC media you are referring to? A cursory search does not tell me.
As for fictional characters, I don't think it has been conclusively shown that there is any obligation for them to claim they aren't adhering to the original depictions.
drmanhattan16
2yr ago
What kind of "woke replacement" do you think insists the original character was the new version?
I would understand if they did changed something but insisted it was historically accurate. But that is about a fraction of the complaints about "woke replacement"
drmanhattan16
2yr ago
I think they're referring to the modal person of those groups, who are not bad people. Not that those bad people don't exist in those groups.
drmanhattan16
2yr ago
I don't think it should be changed. I think it's clear he's talking about his voters overall, not a specific sub-group. But I wouldn't say that his tweet doesn't include those people.
drmanhattan16
2yr ago
In colloquial English, when a person is referring to a large group of people who are defined by a single property, they are not making any claim about some infinitesimal small fraction of that group.
I think colloquial English also has many instances of people saying "the vast majority" or "most X" or "the general Y" or some other variant of that, in which people make it clear that while a category may contain some particular sub-faction, that sub-faction isn't the average case. So I think even people defending their points admit that the category includes the undesirable sub-faction, only that it isn't representative. So when Trump says "American patriots", both a Trump supporter and I would agree that this group who supported Trump includes the rioters, but that the vast majority of Trump supporters are not rioters.
drmanhattan16
8mo ago
Trump had the opportunity to jail his political opponents and didn't even try.
Trump doesn't, in my view, have the competence or focus to get that sort of thing done, and he is opposed not just by people who disagree politically, but people who think you shouldn't throw political opponents in jail in the first place. Not trying is one thing, but not wanting is another.
Meanwhile, the democratic machine is going to extreme efforts to strain legal precedent in order to put their opponents in jail, and have had varying degrees of success.
Trump did things that were unprecedented, what a surprise that you have to "strain legal precedent" to get him convicted.
Regardless, I don't particularly care about how anyone sees Trump and his alleged crimes. The least people like OP could do is not be satisfied by fighting the Democrat in their minds.
drmanhattan16
2yr ago
One of those women was an important character in the original trilogy, I hope you're not forgetting that. She was an important leader then and it's certainly not implausible she would be leader of the rebellion by that point.
But that's beside the point. Ignorance has yet to be ruled out.
drmanhattan16
2yr ago
No, you're expanding my point beyond what I'm saying. I'm not arguing that the tweet is a violation, only that it's not reasonable to define "American patriots" in his tweet as mutually exclusive with the rioters. I agree that the tweet shouldn't be removed and isn't violating any policy.
drmanhattan16
1yr ago
I'm not convinced that anyone who goes onto the podcast is in serious danger of losing their jobs or having their families harassed in two decades time or even further into the future. Even if they happen to be election truthers.
drmanhattan16
1yr ago
You cannot use the existence of bad actors to hand-wave away the need for good or proper behavior. There are people who will never see socialism in a good light or give it a fair hearing, that doesn't absolve any good-faith socialist from being truthful and honest in their argumentation.
drmanhattan16
2yr ago
Fair enough, that example does seem to be a case of social commentary, in which case, I would agree that there is an obligation to get things right. But not all media is trying to do social commentary.
drmanhattan16
2yr ago
Hard evidence comes out that it was in fact happening, and you go "pff, everyone knew that"?
But we already knew that? I mean just publicly, we knew that Twitter was taking a stance against "misinformation" and trying to add corrections to people's tweets. Mind you, I don't think the exact specifics were known to the public, but I also don't consider "news flash, Twitter has active infrastructure and action to combat what they don't want" to be something particularly revealing.
Wikipedia is still calling Twiiter shaddow-banning a "conspiracy theory" (even as they admit it turned out to be true).
It's Wikipedia on a topic that is now salient to politics, did you expect that the people editing it were more interested in substance over ideology?
Secondly, the shadow-banning thing is an annoying conversation by virtue of being over definition. My understanding of shadow-banning is that no one can see the content in question, though the user would never know this without logging out and checking for their content. This is how Reddit does it, from my understanding, and how a lot of people are thinking about this topic.
However, I don't agree with this and think we should amend the definition based on how Twitter operates. If a celebrity starts noticing their tweets get no engagement, they'd realize it immediately as something being off because there's a direct link between followers in a way that doesn't exist on Reddit. So if Twitter makes it so that only followers see that content, then we should say this person is shadow-banned. However, there's a caveat to this in that technically, the content wasn't hidden, just maximally deboosted, meaning even the amended definition wouldn't fit. I think that's a small and irrelevant point to quibble over, personally.
If I have any problem with how people are doing this debate more publicly, it would be that definitions aren't being tabooed.
drmanhattan16
2yr ago
Chait's argument holds just as well for Chait, who makes no effort whatsoever at concealing his overwhelming bias. The people at the conference are The Enemy, and they must be Stopped At All Costs. He's nothing more than a Democrat operative with a byline, as they say.
Overwhelming? I'm not sure where you're seeing that.
It's true that Chait makes some serious missteps in his article, but they're small points that don't detract from what he's saying. For that matter, most of what he says is just summarizing and characterizing what was said at the conference.
drmanhattan16
1yr ago
In other words, no matter how fair an election might be that both sides had previously agreed to, the loser should be catered to with negotiations and compromises simply because they refuse to accept the outcome.
I reject that idea entirely. If Trump supporters and other election truthers need to have refuges from the rest of the American nation, I'm willing to accommodate that, but I'm not going to accept their claim that they just have a principled concern about election security.
drmanhattan16
1yr ago
This is one person expressing this viewpoint, and no one was coming after IH until it was clear that he had plagiarized the Mental Floss article.
drmanhattan16
2yr ago
It was all public to begin with, however. It might not be easy to find, but the account wasn't publishing information that would not have seen the light of day. This isn't a case like Scott Alexander's, the law requires that planes be identifiable to the ground and to each other.
Not really getting how this is doxxing. Is it bad? Probably. Should you signal boost such accounts? Probably not. But Elon Musk isn't the modal private citizen either, he's got lots of attention on him by default. If it was his home or something, that might be different, but I don't think you inherently have the right to not have your private jet identified by people and posted online when you fly.
drmanhattan16
2yr ago
The interpretation of by that employee was bizarre in that it tried to separate the rioters from Trump supporters. All I'm saying is that this isn't very reasonable - you probably don't have many non-Trump supporters rioting inside the building. This can be true even if we say that the modal supporter isn't a rioter.
drmanhattan16
2yr ago
I looked at her donations. Being straight D is weak evidence she's a Biden supporter (she donated to Harris). It seems possible that this is why, but very weak overall.
drmanhattan16
2yr ago
Obviously this is coordinated, yet again, by the ADL, who have come out of the closet and started issuing mafia-like threats publicly.
What part of the tweet you linked is a "mafia-like threat"? That tweet is the last of a series in which they claim they've documented a rise in anti-semitic posting. They're arguing that this is caused by the lack of moderation and that any platform that doesn't want this to happen has to engage in strict(er) moderation. They also explicitly called upon advertisers to pull from Twitter, that's about as blatant as you can get.
drmanhattan16
1yr ago
I think part of the point is, people will have to come out and identify as election deniers. The next thing, they're being accused of supporting the Jan 6th coup, wanting to overthrow the legitimate government, and being a fully-signed up fascist.
There's plenty of election deniers who openly admit to it and would probably have no problem with it even in conversations with strangers. What has happened to them that is bad?
drmanhattan16
1yr ago
Why can't there be a teacher, acting in good faith, showing a child/teenager how to use a condom or what a birth control pill looks like? Maybe even outright demonstrating sex to show how this looks in practice.
Put another way, the suspicion on any adult talking sex to a child seems like a practical line drawn to make the best of an imperfect reality. I think if we had a surefire way of knowing a person's intent, we would absolutely not have a problem with some people getting to depict graphic sex to children on the basis of teaching them what it's actually like.
The staffer in question said the following according to Weiss.
"voted for him" and "terrorists" (referring to the Jan 6th rioters) are not mutually exclusive. I'd expect that sort of interpretation from a Trump supporter looking to deny, deny, deny. When I ask myself who was there, I don't think the answer is ever going to be "people who aren't Trump supporters but decided to riot inside".
We have no idea how many people wanted him banned that way. This is why I said not having the full logs to comb through makes this frustrating - we literally cannot assess accurately how many people wanted Trump gone. We can only speculate about it based on things like political donations, and we have no reason to assume the process-oriented people weren't also left-leaning or anti-Trump. The phrase "vocal minority" exists for a reason.
More options
Context Copy link