[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/news/ - Current News

[Advertise on 4chan]

Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 99 posters in this thread.

08/21/20New boards added: /vrpg/, /vmg/, /vst/ and /vm/
05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
[Hide] [Show All]


[Advertise on 4chan]


Yale historian Timothy Snyder, an expert on the Holocaust and authoritarian regimes, has issued a dire warning on the state of American democracy at this moment, and it's disturbing.

Snyder, who has written around nine books books on the subject and era, compares the January 6 insurrection with 9/11.

He writes, "it is so obvious where all of this is heading. President Trump tells a big lie that elections are rigged. This authorizes him and others to seek power in extra-democratic ways. The lie is institutionalized by state legislation that suppresses voting, and that gives state legislatures themselves the right to decide how to allocate the electoral vote in presidential elections."

>The scenario then goes like this. The Republicans win back the House and Senate in 2022, in part thanks to voter suppression. The Republican candidate in 2024 loses the popular vote by several million and the electoral vote by the margin of a few states. State legislatures, claiming fraud, alter the electoral count vote. The House and Senate accept that altered count. The losing candidate becomes the president. We no longer have "democratically elected government." And people are angry.

Snyder, who has written book with titles including, On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century, and Black Earth: The Holocaust as History and Warning, adds that "No one is seeking to hide that this is the plan."

While he doesn't name it, Snyder seems to suggest that HR1/S1, the "For the People Act" is the only way to stop this takeover of America by Republicans.

https://www.rawstory.com/authoritarianism-expert-delivers-warning-comparing-1-6-to-9-11-when-trump-told-big-lie-the-airplane-hit-the-building/
>>
>When Trump told his big lie, the airplane hit the building. What unfolds from there has a certain logic. It can be stopped, but only if it is understood. Everything happens fast. It is so easy to look away, to imagine it was all an accident, to think that institutions will save us. They will only save us if we save them first.

>The anti-voter laws proposed and passed by Republican state legislatures around the country move the scenario to its next step. Halting them might well be the only way to halt the scenario as a whole.

Noted journalism professor Jay Rosen endorses Snyder's warning:

>I agree with Timothy Snyder. This is where it's going, and there is presently nothing on the horizon that would stop it.
>>
>Yale
Opinion discarded.
>>
>>864969
>Overall, we rate Raw Story Left Biased based on story selection that favors the left and Mixed for factual reporting due to half-true, false, and unproven claims, as well as the promotion of mild pseudoscience misinformation.
>>
>>864994
Anti-intellectualism is a staple of conservatism.
>>
>>864969
>Republicans will steal the 2024 election

this is not propaganda. this not fake news. this is a fucking scumbag accusing voters being retards and and whole party being fraudsters. for such accusations you can go for 5 years into prison.
>>
>>864969
>Trump stole the 2024 election
I knew it! Time to take the capitol back.
>>
>>865014
Not under Biden. Biden supports the fascist notion that American "democracy" works best when all opposition is oppressed and outlawed.
>>
>>865010
having actually read Timothy Snyder before, I can assure you that dunking on him is not anti-intellectualism
>>
>>865022
>Timothy Snyder
https://youtu.be/C2wFknH7E5Y
>>
>>864969
yes, both are and were made up by the compliant government to push a one world government agenda.they are absolutely 100% correct.
>>
>>865014
If that's the case, we can finally put Trump is jail.
>>
>>865039
>a one world government agenda
only idiots believe this. like the US would EVER partner with China as a one nation unit. you would need some extremely well armed group to force them both to the table.... except the only group capable of pushing China or the US around is china or america.

and you fucking faggots never bother to explain. its just "YOU'RE SHEEPLE FOR NOT WORSHIPING AT MY FEET FOR THESE OPINIONS"
>>
>>865010
>Anti-intellectualism is a staple of conservatism.
Sayeth the shill who believes "critical race theory" IS intellectualism.
>>
>>865051
your response just shows how naive you are, and any explaining to you would be just as productive to explain it to my ceiling.usa,great britain, germany, russia, china are nations with nationalistic ideologies, thats how you see them.you might think that the persons who you see the most on tv have a say or any control, but thats where your delusions start and any ideas of how and who runs the world ends for you.and if you're mindset of people who likes to open some minds is that then im sorry for you.
>>
>>865054
thats a whole lot of bullshit about what YOU think I think.
are you incapable of talking without going out of your way to shit on whoever you speak to?
like the child you actually are. you need to be 18 to post here btw
>>
This 2024 scenario will lead to the eventual succession of states, not all red.
>>
>>865068
lol your repulsive thoughts seeps through so yeah, i can so much conclude that its irrelevant to explain anything to you.so mad that you are that easy to read through?maybe be more open and then someone might point you to places.and are you seriously trying to argue me shitting on someone when you literally posted and i quote "and you fucking faggots never bother to explain. its just "YOU'RE SHEEPLE FOR NOT WORSHIPING AT MY FEET FOR THESE OPINIONS".
>>
>>865010
Academic elitism is a staple of leftism.
>>
>>864969
>it is so obvious where all of this is heading. President Trump tells a big lie that elections are rigged
But it is rigged. Currently, as an American voting in your presidential election there is no choice. The country is in the iron grip of an oligarchy backed by big tech. For a guy who professes to be an expert on authoritarianism it's curious that he doesn't label the current state of affairs since Reagan (maybe even FDR) as such a regime.
American 'democracy' is a fucking joke and while I don't support BLM's grifter leaders or that two faced sack of shit Trump, 2020 was a fantastic year to let people get their anger out and to realize just how truly corrupt this country is.

It's so funny to me how these r/politics-tier clickbaity fear mongering articles are so vehemently against the current state of affairs yet blame the symptoms, not the cause. It's almost as if media has thrown its lot in with neoliberalism.
>>
>>865082
Academia is just the tip of liberal horrors. Other staples are truely awful things like living wages, progressive taxation, national Healthcare systems that don't rob you blind, antitrust, prosecution of financial crimes, and preventing MNCs from polluting our only habitable environment for the foreseeable future... Thankfully we stopped trying to do any of that 50 years ago which is why America is THE GREATEST and why all Europeans, Australians, and New Zeelanders want to move here!! Liberals are truely history's greatest monsters.
>>
>>864969
>Snyder, who has written around nine books books on the subject and era, compares the January 6 insurrection with 9/11.
Okay this is getting old now. At first this was another funny cope meme /news/ did to deflect when losing an argument, but seriously it is time to stop now.

Jan 6 is in no fucking way comparable to 9/11 or Pearl Harbor no matter how badly you want Republicans to look bad. The fact that I have to explain how the death tolls are drastically different is just amazing.
>>
>>865095
Feel free to move to Europe, Australia, or New Zealand anytime, friend.
>>
>>865095
>be me
>live in blue city in blue state
>no living wages
>no progressive taxation
>no state healthcare system
>no prosecution of white collar crime
>admittedly good protection of the environment

What we get instead is
>urban decay
>failing education despite paying most per capita
>rampant crime to the point where the DA decided to just stop prosecuting
>refusal to legalize marijuana
>unaffordable university costs
>crumbling roads and bridges
>hypercompetitive job market
>abandoned neighborhoods that stretch for miles
So fuck off with your tribalistic "JUST VOTE BLUE TEAM AND EVERYTHING WILL BE PARADISE!!!" nonsense
>>
>>865089
>The country is in the iron grip of an oligarchy backed by big tech
If by"big tech" you mean "wall street" then you are correct. Big tech doesn't run America's fucked up Healthcare, education, energy, or defense systems. They're just the new convenient scapegoat for 50 years of business as usual.
>blame the symptoms, not the cause
Which is exactly what you just did.
>>
>>865100
So move to a lovely red state podunk county in the sticks where you will have great wages, quality inexpensive Healthcare, and great career opportunities!!!

Or maybe you're just full of shit. I'm guessing the latter.
>>
>>865105
>YOU DON'T LIKE BLUE TEAM SO YOU MUST BE A RED SUPPORTER!!!!
This is why the Europeans ridicule us constantly on here.
>>
>>865099
Maybe you haven't heard, they don't want the diseased population from shithole America coming in and fucking up their counties anymore.
>>
>>865108
Wow, no open borders, guess they aren't as progressive as they seem.
>>
>>865106
>muh red blue, both sides r bad, I'm very intelligent
>>
>>865109
To be fair, I don't want Americans in America either.
>>
>>865110
>hating centrists
far-leftist detected
>>
>>865101
That's why I said "an oligarchy backed by big tech", not big tech period. Big tech is just the newest and best of their tools.

>>865110
Both Democrats and Republicans are right wing. This isn't some hidden knowledge. Dems are just somewhat more socially progressive.
>>
>>865120
>Both Democrats and Republicans are right wing
>its a "the overton window is centered on Europe, please ignore the rest of humanity" leftist
>>
>>865124
Why does it matter how the rest of the world leans politically, lol? That wouldn't suddenly make Democrats leftist, or most European politics lean right.
Do you even know what the "Overton window" is? It's just a summary of policies acceptable to a given populace, it's not applied on the entire planet because that would be nonsense. In America the Overton window is considerably right wing with more of a socially progressive bend nowadays.
>>
>>865127
Being far-left isn't a license to call everyone else rightwing.
>>
>>865132
I didn't realize it takes being far left to recognize that Democrats, who are definitionally staunch advocates of the free market/capitalism, are right wing. Seems to be something anyone could recognize from any point on the political spectrum.
>>
>>865105
You didn't refute anything he said. The red states are just as bad or worse in most of those areas, that doesn't negate the fact that the blue states are also shit.
>>
>>865136
The center is what defines the left and right, and the American center lies between democrats and republicans. So democrats are leftwing. The global center lies between the least regulated markets and the most stringent socialist economies, and thus the democrats are still slightly to the left. And the dems are not staunch advocates of the free market, they love intervention, so you aren't even accurate about that either.
>>
>>864969
>Authoritarianism expert
>>
>>865142
You do realize there are other parties in the US other than Democrat and Republican, yes? They just don't form the right wing oligarchy and shift of power from elite to elite that your elections have turned into. Yes, Dems tend to be a few steps left of Republicans, that does not mean they are left wing or they should be considered the 'left'.
>And the dems are not staunch advocates of the free market, they love intervention
You're conflating 'free market' with complete laissez-faire ancapistan bullshit which nobody except the schizos support. Republicans also love subsidies in industries they like, and yet not one single person in the US Capitol will say they oppose capitalism.
>>
>>865154
>muh oligarchy
>muh irrelevant parties
Yes, you are far-left, I know. It doesn't matter, you are irrelevant to the left-right spectrum. Democrats are the left wing in the USA.
>Republicans also love subsidies in industries they like, and yet not one single person in the US Capitol will say they oppose capitalism.
Not one single person in the US capital would say Democrats are right wing either. Why is it that your retarded interpretation of the spectrum is true when it suits you, but then the mainstream interpretation is true when that suits you? Be consistent at least.
>>
alarmist canards ignoring obvious and troubling irregularities in the election process for any observer
>>
>>865156
I mean, sure, lol, Democrats are considered left wing on a broad scale because your average American's understanding of politics/economics is lacking, that doesn't mean it actually is, it doesn't mean that's how things should be.
It'd be like if the world for whatever reason considered fascism left wing, or anarchy left wing, or Lenin's Russia right wing, if that's what the world believed then so be it, but it wouldn't be correct in the slightest.
>Not one single person in the US capital would say Democrats are right wing either
Because nobody in our federal government actually give a damn about left or right wing labels and it's a great political tool to conflate right wingers with Nazis/left wingers with the USSR, and all of them love capitalism lol
>>
>>864969
buzzword, appear to authority, orangemanbad, we must seize federal control of elections goy for "our democracy."
>>
>>865110
>NOOOO YOU CAN'T LIKE AND DISLIKE POLICIES FROM BOTH PARTIES YOU HAVE TO CHOOSE A SIDE
It shouldn't be this controversial to come out and say single-party governance is a recipe for corruption
>>
>>865142
>the party decides where the center and where left and right are
No. This is not China, you know?
>>
>>865164
>quoting something that wasn't said
Did they have a sale on straw or are you dipping into your reserve to make this strawman?
>>
>>865110
One thing you accidentally got right: One has to be pretty stupid to identify with the party, swear loyalty to the party, fight for the party. No matter which party. Ask yourself again why so many people look down on you.
>>
>>864969
>how Republicans will steal the 2024
democrats will assume it's over and not vote?
>>
>>865082
>Being smart is bad
The No Nothing Party proudly returns.
>>
>>865096
Why?
>>
>>865165
Are you retarded? I quote:
>and the American center lies between democrats and republicans.
Did you say that or not? If yes, then you claimed that the party alone defines where the center of the week is.
>>
>>865168
>if you are skeptical of academics then you are dumb and ignorant
The authoritarians proudly return - wait, you never left.
>>
>>865170
The democrats and republicans are not "the party" and I did not claim that they were deciding where the center is. I said the center happens to lie between them. They didn't set the center, they build around a center that is determined by the American public.
>>
>>865171
It truly amazes me how the left went from "We don't need no education, we don't need no thought control!" to "Never, EVER, question what an academic or journalist says"
>>
>>865171
>Skeptical
>Using the Anti-vaxxer tactic of where you don't need victory, you just need to muddy the waters so people don't do the right thing.
Typical.
>>
>>865174
>the right thing is what we tell you it is, if you disagree then you're just like the anti-vaxxers
In the past, people like you called people like me heretics. Sorry, but Yale is not the authority on authoritarianism, and if they were, it would still be right to question them because any authority can be wrong.
>>
The first warning

You ignore

The second you ignore

The third, you ignore too, because the others didn't became true too.

Until, one day, it becomes true
>>
>>865179
>been constantly warning everyone that wolf was right around the corner for nearly 100 years now
>people stop listening to you because the wolf never comes
>now if/when the wolf actually does arrive no one will believe you, or worse think you deserve to get eaten by the wolf
Many such cases, very sad.
>>
>>865179
>>865182
Sometimes the wolf never comes though, its not the rapture is happening. Substantiate your predictions or don't be shocked when they are ignored.
>>
>>865173
>"Never, EVER, question what an academic or journalist says"
Nobody makes this argument. What is actually happening is that conservatives are staunchly anti-intellectual and aren't capable of discussing these ideas in an academic context so they reject the entire concept of academia all together. Intellectualism is to conservatives what vacuum cleaners are to dogs - they don't know what it is or what its function is but they know it scares them and usually respond with extreme fear or violence.
>>
>>865183
>Substantiate your predictions or don't be shocked when they are ignored
They won't. Keeping people terrified of some vague, nebulous threat that could murder them any day is a corner stone of far-right ideology. Without it they would have no mechanism to recruit and sustain a member base.
>>
>>865185
>corner stone of far-right ideology
You realize this is a Yale yuppie scaremongering about the right, right?
>>
>>865184
>Nobody makes this argument
Except for right here >>865174
where any skepticism is conflated with anti-vaxxers
>>
>>865184
>Nobody makes this argument.
Yes they do all the time, any time an academic gets into controversy they use the "anti-intellectualism" defense.
>conservatives are staunchly anti-intellectual
No.
>aren't capable of discussing these ideas in an academic context
They aren't allowed to because the academic establishment routinely discriminates against them.
>usually respond with extreme fear or violence.
I have never heard of conservative students rioting at a college campus because a left-wing speaker came to visit
>>
>>865187
>https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/01/190109142610.htm
Its actually just a well studied and conclusive psychological observation. Conservatism, in nearly every study performed, associated highly with an increased negativity bias and attention/reactivity to threat or fear based stimuli.
>>
>>865189
>Except for right here
Incorrect. The argument that we're not allowed to question what academics say is not equivalent to the argument that broad, vague skepticism is by definition anti-intellectual. Skepticism and critical analysis are two different things and we separate them for a reason. Lets say someone puts out a paper stating that processed sugar is bad for you. A critical analysis would be gathering data which communicates the contrary and making a general analysis that perhaps the information we have on this claim isn't definitive enough. Skepticism, however, is anti-intellectual gesturing. As a skeptic, I could simply say "Well, they say processed sugar is bad but maybe they're getting paid by a cabal of anti-sugar scientists. Is it a coincidence that big diet soda companies pay for some of these studies huh???" That isn't critical analysis. You've done no research and provided no data to support a counter claim. All you've done is provide a series of baseless hypotheticals that casts doubt on data without actually having to prove anything. So, no. Skepticism and criticism/critical analysis are not the same thing. Skepticism requires no intellectual effort whereas critical analysis does. Calling out skepticism for being highly anti-intellectual is also not equivalent to agreeing with every academic ever. That doesn't even make any sense.
>>
>>865190
>any time an academic gets into controversy they use the "anti-intellectualism" defense
You're being very vague. Can you give an example of this?

>No.
Yes. Lower levels of education correlate with being a conservative. The more educated you are the less likely you are to be a conservative.

>They aren't allowed to because the academic establishment routinely discriminates against them
Yes, the "great other" is oppressing your ideas and its their fault that you can't engage in an academic context.

>I have never heard of conservative students rioting at a college campus because a left-wing speaker came to visit
I have heard of conservative students rioting at a campus because the school allowed brown people to start attending. In fact, I can recall this happening many, many more times than the single Berklee riot you're referring to. If you want to go tit for tat you're not going to win, anon.
>>
>>865196
>maybe they're getting paid by a cabal of anti-sugar scientists
Could it be that people have these reactions to academics because the United States has an incredibly long history of corporations fabricating academic studies, paying off politicians to produce fake government reports, and bribing media organizations to give them good press? Exxon-Mobile is currently being sued for billions of dollars for knowingly publishing false information about climate change.
>>
>>865193
Bruh read the original study..
that study was performed during the 2016 presidential election, 1 month before the election took place. It looked at both the election and climate change and people's reactions.
It's findings are literally based on the fact that conservatives were outraged Hillary deleted emails and liberals were cool with it.
>>
>>865200
>Could it be that people have these reactions to academics because the United States has an incredibly long history of corporations fabricating academic studies, paying off politicians to produce fake government reports, and bribing media organizations to give them good press?
So, there has to be a delineation between these two questions. The first question being - is it unreasonable for people to experience a feeling of distrust in their government? No, not necessarily. The second question being - do you have an empirical or data based criticism of a particular study/statistic you disagree with? If the answer is no and all you have is a knee-jerk distrust then you are, by definition, being anti-intellectual.

>Exxon-Mobile is currently being sued for billions of dollars for knowingly publishing false information about climate change.
Do you not see the difference between a massive oil conglomerate releasing a study on climate change and an academic/medical community releasing a study on, say, transgender theory? What you're doing right now is using a very broad brush of skepticism to lump all different manner of data and studies under this one conspiratorial umbrella. This "well people have lied before" argument could be used to dismiss anything and everything, anon. If this argument was considered valid then literally no data anywhere would be of use because all you would have to do to dismiss it is just vaguely mention that people have lied before. Do you now see how broad skepticism like that is incredibly damaging?
>>
>>865202
>It's findings are literally based on the fact that conservatives were outraged Hillary deleted emails and liberals were cool with it.
Point out to me in the study where it says this.
>>
>>865175
Nah, I'm just labeling you stupid and evil.
>>
>>865173
Back then the left was a youth movement and academia was controlled by entrenched moral conservatives. Now, 50 years later, the left are the entrenched moral conservatives.
>>
>>865215
This.
Funny how the pendulum swings
>>
>>865208
>I'm not calling you a heretic, I'm calling you the same thing as a heretic for the same reasons people were called heretics
>>
>>865205
>Do you now see how broad skepticism like that is incredibly damaging?
If you didn't want the masses to be skeptic about the information you present to them, you shouldn't have routinely lied to them for decades and decades and decades.

It was academics who said electroshock therapy and lobotomies cured mental illnesses. It was academics who said cigarettes were a healthy way to relieve stress. It was academics who said certain groups of people were biologically superior to others.

You seem to think that because I don't blindly trust what establishments and institutions say, I must be some Amish conspiracy theorist ranting about turning the frogs gay. All I'm saying is that because someone is in a position of power doesn't make them omniscient. Journalists lie, academics are biased, corporations care mostly about profits, politicians are primarily self-interested. Make up your own damn mind and think critically.
>>
>>865205
Not him and I don't necessarily disagree with you, but broad skepticism is not in and of itself a bad thing, you should absolutely question whatever study you come across, especially nowadays given replicability has become such a major issue. What you should not do of course is immediately reject it and accept the alternative based on the premise of not liking the conclusion drawn.

Basically if people used the words "It seems to be that X leads to Y" instead of "X leads to Y" the anti-science crowd would be a bit softer. That and the bizarre voter interest nonsense that Americans engage in. I half wonder if Trump was still POTUS if the antivax crowd would have been liberal.
>>
>>865232
>If you didn't want the masses to be skeptic about the information you present to them, you shouldn't have routinely lied to them for decades and decades and decades.
Ok, but that's not how intellectualism works. The entire concept of using empirical data to build our worldview collapses if we accept "Well other people have lied before" as a legitimate criticism. The pendulum swings both ways and has real human consequence. At that point logic means nothing anymore.

>It was academics who said electroshock therapy and lobotomies cured mental illnesses. It was academics who said cigarettes were a healthy way to relieve stress.
And do you know how we countered those academics? By studying the science and providing compelling data which proved them wrong. You seem to be confused. I'm not opposed to the idea of countering academics. I'm opposed to the idea of countering them with vague, baseless hypotheticals that are only designed to cast doubt but don't assert anything prescriptive. If the only argument we had against electroshock and cigarettes was "Well, someone people in the past have lied" then we would still be doing those things. We never would of developed better therapies or a medical consensus on cigarette use if we took your anti-intellectual approach.

>All I'm saying is that because someone is in a position of power doesn't make them omniscient.
Literally nobody is making this argument.

>Make up your own damn mind and think critically.
I don't know if you realize this but what you're advocating for is the opposite of critical thinking.
>>
>>865235
>but broad skepticism is not in and of itself a bad thing, you should absolutely question whatever study you come across
I use the word skepticism in the colloquial, internet context i.e. "skeptic youtube" and the like. Of course I don't disagree with the general state of being skeptical. What I'm advocating against is the brand of skepticism which consists of throwing out a dozen hypotheticals about ways data COULD be wrong but doesn't actually state why they are wrong or provide any evidence. Skepticism that borders conspiracism - that's what I'm talking about here.

>I half wonder if Trump was still POTUS if the antivax crowd would have been liberal.
Nah. My guess is as soon as the actual scientific experts signed off on it everyone would've been on board. The anti-vaxx crowd in its current form could almost only exist under a conservative framework especially considering that half of that crowd also overlaps with q-anon, chemtrails, jewish space lasers, flat earth etc., Conspiratorial thinking rarely exists in such controlled boundaries.
>>
>>865239
>The entire concept of using empirical data to build our worldview collapses if we accept "Well other people have lied before" as a legitimate criticism
I'm not advocating for throwing out data and statistics because people lie, I'm advocating against blindly believing data and statistics because to do otherwise would be "anti-intellectual"

>Literally nobody is making this argument.
I have seriously been called a bigoted anti-intellectual by my peers in real life because I said I didn't believe the news when they said BLM protests back in summer 2020 didn't contribute to COVID-19 cases, and my evidence was you can check the data yourself from Johns Hopkins that shows confirmed cases increasing in dense metro areas that had these protests. Their only retort was "Anon the news and experts all agree you're wrong"
>>
>>864969
Personally I agree that the Republicans will be successful in what they're aiming for in 2024.

They already tried in 2020 but failed between the lack of votes and the non-partisan civil servants refusing to bend. The Trumpist faction is in clear, undisputed control of the party now and they're passing laws to remedy the things which prevented them from disregarding the election result last time around, sometimes going as far as to place the outcome of the election in the hands of state legislatures, who can now throw out results without even proving that fraud affected the outcome. Simple vote.

If the Democrats take enough states in 2024, it won't matter. Republicans are willing to do anything, Democrats are not. I'm just glad I'm a dual citizen so I can leave before this place goes full single party.
>>
>>865242
>I'm advocating against blindly believing data and statistics because to do otherwise would be "anti-intellectual"
I've already explained this a few times. Nobody is arguing against criticizing data. What I'm arguing against is criticizing data with baseless hypotheticals about how the data could possibly be wrong without actually providing

>I have seriously been called a bigoted anti-intellectual by my peers in real life because I said I didn't believe the news when they said BLM protests back in summer 2020 didn't contribute to COVID-19 cases
I don't have any insight on your personal anecdotes or what attitudes the people in your social circle have but you probably received pushback on this because you were wrong.

>https://www.healthline.com/health-news/black-lives-matter-protests-didnt-contribute-to-covid19-surge#No-evidence-of-protest-spread

It seems as though, for some reason, you never really learned how to provide a well-backed criticism. It seems as though you have an emotional reaction to news and then work backwards to find data which validate that emotional reaction after the fact. This is pretty evident from the fact that I've explained these concepts to you several times but the only thing you seem to hear is "SCIENTISTS ARE ALL INFALLIBLE 100% OF THE TIME" despite the fact that I've explicitly said the opposite of this several times.
>>
>>865248
>Nobody is arguing against criticizing data
You keep repeating this statement and yet it still doesn't make it true. Yes, there are people out there are against criticizing data and the presentations of institutions, they're called authoritarians and there are plenty of examples of them lying or suppressing data within the 21st century.
>What I'm arguing against is criticizing data with baseless hypotheticals
Every scientific inquiry begins with a hypothesis. If you deny the right of people to disagree with you because that would be "anti-intellectual" then you deny science as a whole
>It seems as though, for some reason, you never really learned how to provide a well-backed criticism
Here you go again proving my point that you believe anyone who even dares to think outside what institutions say are anti-intellectuals that only think with emotions
>>
>>865051
There’s nothing wrong with the idea of a one world government, either. I’ve never understood why the conspiracy theorists are terrified of the one thing that might actually benefit people in the long run.
>>
>>865139
Well you can always move to a far right paradise like Russia, Brazil, or Congo
>>
What voter suppression policies is he referring to? They can’t still be banging on about driver licenses…
>>
>>865310
Nothing wrong, other than the fact corruption on that order of magnitude would be cataclysmic, or the fact people have so many varying ideas about how government should be constructed that such a wide scale compromise would not lead to civil unity, or the fact that such a structure would be disastrous to realistically organize, so yeah, basically, if you lived in fantasy wonderland there's nothing wrong with a world government.
>>
>>865317
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/interactive/2021/voting-restrictions-republicans-states/
>At least 250 new laws have been proposed in 43 states
to limit mail, early in-person and Election Day voting.
>>
>>865320
haha yeah
>>
>>865167
No. Red state legislatures overturn the will of the people.
>>
>>865172
In terms of policy, the American center is left of both parties. So no, parties do not define the center.
>>
>>865310
A strong central authority is not going to benefit everyone in the long run. It would be an empire in all but name, subjugating a diverse people to the will of a single authority. Good luck in court or running for office if you don't speak the national language. Good luck defending your belief system and culture when a moral busybody bureaucrat decides tattoos and peyote are bad and should be illegal, and 95% of the citizens don't give a shit about those things because its not their problem. Watch as every protest is crushed by troops imported from another hemisphere, with armies of soldiers indifferent to the distant dissidents they oppress. If local cops fuck over their own neighbors and local mayors are corrupt shitbags, then people a world away from their subjects would be even more corrupt since they aren't even facing the threat of brick through their window. And you can't flee to seek asylum in another land.
>>
>>865327
>parties of opportunists are totally just leaving potential votes sitting on the table instead of appealing to centrists
You're just overestimating where the center is, the public isn't as left-leaning as you and your peers.
>>
>>865320
Hmm I see. Hard to say what should be done. If it can be proved that early voting and mail in balllots are insecure methods, and dems really did forge ballots, then there you go. But in theory I approve of making voting more accessible to citizens ie voting early and by mail. Repubs are making an awfully big claim, one I don’t think they can prove, whether they are right or not.
>>
>>865329
I'm not talking about my peers, I'm talking about polling related to actual policy.

>parties of opportunists are totally just leaving potential votes sitting on the table instead of appealing to centrists...muh
Elections in this country are driven by money, not voters, retard. Lern 2 Amerika.
>>
>>865327
this is a retarded take. step outside of your extremist bubble.
>>
>>865333
Berniebros aren't the center, anon.
>>
>>865335
>the majority of Americans support a living wage, an affordable national Healthcare system, legal weed, higher taxes on the extremely wealthy, etc.
>this is extremism
Enjoy your wage slavery, Americuck
>>
>>865052
This is about Donald Trumps lies and seizure of the Republucan party, stay on topic retard

>>865082
>he's literally Anti education
You cant make this up. This is why you stupid faggots ACTUALLY think Donald Trump won, and lost due to a massive unproven conspiracy. How about you kill yourself
>>
>>865082
>t. a conservative who gets offended and angry by anybody "elitist" enough to speak in complete sentences
>>
>>865255
>Yes, there are people out there are against criticizing data and the presentations of institutions, they're called authoritarians and there are plenty of examples of them lying or suppressing data within the 21st century
I'm very familiar with this kind of conspiratorial gesturing so, again, could you provide like an example of a time in modern history when the vast medical or academic consensus turned out to be a massive scam by some nefarious special interest group?

>If you deny the right of people to disagree with you because that would be "anti-intellectual" then you deny science as a whole
I see you're struggling to comprehend again. I'll explain one more time in the simplest way I can. Disagreeing with people on the basis of actionable, empirical evidence is not only acceptable but highly encouraged in the academic community. Disagreeing with people by screaming "ITS ALL A CONSPIRACY. PEOPLE HAVE LIED BEFORE." is anti-intellectual. In order for your disagreement to be considered intellectual it must contain intellect. It must contain an empirical observation or analysis of some kind. Does that make sense?

>Here you go again proving my point that you believe anyone who even dares to think outside what institutions say are anti-intellectuals that only think with emotions
Another wonderful strawman. Incorrect. What I believe is that you, personally, don't know how to construct a logical criticism of any sort. I've repeatedly explained very, very simple logical concepts to you and you still fail to even remotely grasp them because you can't entertain the idea of nuance in anything that's been said. I've mounted a very specific criticism about a very specific brand of intellectualism and its like you're incapable of comprehending it and you're instead upset about something that I've never said and society as a whole has never said.
>>
>>865358
>>865370
>nooo, you can't doubt this historian from Yale that says things that agree with my bias, historians can predict the future and totally know that Trump is going to steal 2024
This whole thing is just an alarmist farce masquerading as intellectualism. Its literally the opposite of intellectual, its emotional irrational garbage intended to scare liberals. Just a massive appeal to authority for fart huffers to point at and say "look! look! We told you Trump was Hitler see the historian is on our side!"
>>
>>865358
>homosexuals should be suicided because they support Donald Trump
Ladies and gentlemen, a typical leftists.
>>
>>865345
I didn't realize policy equalled public polls.
You're right the average American is 'centrist' because most barely know or care about politics beyond the liberal lean of mass media, if that. That doesn't mean desires accurately reflected by the policymakers, and vice versa, it does not mean your average American is considered right wing.
>>
>>865381
Nobody really give a shit about some OpEd from a Yale historian. Your average American has zero investment in the academic ramblings of some ivy league professor. The validity of his claims is irrelevant to the fact that you conservatives are actually constitutionally incapable of articulating why you disagree with things without flailing and shrieking like some mentally challenged ape. Its just funny that you have all these convictions but when you're asked to articulate it in a coherent disagreement you can't. You can't explain why you believe any of the things you believe like an adult and its pathetic and hilarious. Even if the Yale professor is full of shit he can at least explain his thought process at an 8th grade level.
>>
>>865381
Well, yeah. This isn't a study with empirical evidence that uses careful analysis of experimental groups and procedures, it's just an opinion piece published by a media outlet who wants clicks.
The problem is you guys use shit like this as an excuse to bash all scientific study or "experts" as if there's some vague council of evilness that controls all experimental outcomes and study conclusions.
Perhaps you're right liberals don't go after idiotic thinkpieces like this enough, but the anti-rationality present in conservatives is far more dangerous currently.
>>
>>865225
But I never labeled you a heretic, just stupid and evil, you're labeling yourself as a heretic. So don't blame me if people start saying you're a heretic.
>>
>>865243
>If the Democrats take enough states in 2024, it won't matter.
With the sheer amount of voter suppression laws the Republicans are churning out, that will never happen, the country is totally fucked if the Republicans take back one of the houses of congress in 2022 since they'll just refuse to certify the elections and force a vote in congress in which they'll just steal the election. As you said, they attempted that this year during Trump's failed coup, and they were also attempting to override the will of the people in multiple states. I think it was Arizona where the Republicans appointed a shadow delegation for the electoral votes and they tried to storm the capitol where the actual delegation was.
>>
>>865381
I mean you think the election was stolen so I don't know why anybody would believe anything you have to say
>>
>>865376
>could you provide an example
Sure, big pharma working with doctors and healthcare providers to push opiods on Americans to make a profit immediately comes to mind.

>I see you're struggling to comprehend again
No, you just keep denying the existence of corruption and manipulation from higher institutions and the use of "anti-intellectualism" as a way to dismiss dissenting opinions

>something I've never said
You explicitly said I was a reactionary driven by emotion only seeking out data that confirms my worldview
>>
>>865395
>The problem is you guys use shit like this as an excuse to bash all scientific study or "experts" as if there's some vague council of evilness that controls all experimental outcomes and study conclusions.

This is unironically the state of modern soft sciences. You're a fool not to see the overt, pervasive bias, caused by an infestation of woke ideologues who force their institutions to conduct one sided research and silence any criticism or actual science with career destroying accusations of "racism" and "sexism". Anything remotely near psychology, sociology, gender studies, race studies, etc is complete pozzed trash, used by adjacent media and academic institutions to manufacture consent through propaganda.

It's not just republicans that are ignorant of the differences in rigor between hard and soft sciences - laymen on the left are just as blind, except in the reverse, they worship the institution of SCIENCE! as a religion and do not question anything that they are told comes from a "study". Being anti-science is far less dangerous at this point than poor quality treating soft science research as undeniable truth, because this collective social behavior creates a dangerous vector for hyperpartisan propaganda. Look no further than the mountain of shoddy research which exclusively offers inequity as proof of racism and is now shaping misguided, malicious, anti-meritocratic social policy.

Treating science as though it is beyond reproach is not scientific. That's far worse than being skeptical of everything. For all of us.
>>
>>865391
I have explained why I disagree quite plainly, he's just a historian talking out of his ass about the future, no further reason is needed to dismiss his wild guesses. You make up this shrieking and flailing that never happened doesn't change that this is all just some guy's guesses that nobody would listen to if not for Yale's prestige.
>>865395
I'm not using this as an excuse to bash scientific study, I'm demanding real study instead of opinionated trash like the OP. The idea that conservatives are anti-rational implies that liberals aren't anti-rational when it suits them too. Being skeptical is good for all of us. And I have to disagree with the idea that anti-rational conservatives are more of a threat than alarmist pseudo-intellectual stuff like what this historian is pushing, its those ideas that get meme'd into policy. At least when conservatives do it people can see through that bullshit, liberals can actually get away with it, and that's a problem.
>>865404
You're just making shit up, I never made any comments on the election.
>>
>>865400
>With the sheer amount of voter suppression laws the Republicans are churning out,
You missed the word "fraud" between the words "voter" and "suppression"
>>
>>865431
nah, it's supposed to go before Republicans
>>
>>865431
What fraud?
>>
>>865430
>liberals aren't anti-rational when it suits them too
Such as?
>>
>>865435
People supporting the historian's baseless claim in this thread. They're relying on emotion and bias, not rationality. But that alone wouldn't be anti-rational, the anti-rational bent comes when they attack skeptics.
>>
>>865422
I mean, I agree a lot of the social sciences are trash, and I'm lefty. To be accurate, I think Marxism and CRT are both good ways to analyze history and power relations and a good reference point for future policy, but not gospel or wholly accurate, and the applications of CRT in particular has practically killed socialism in favor of half baked racist conspiracy plots.
However, American conservatives are wildly anti-hard science as well, rejecting data studies and surveys in favor of unreasonable alternatives. Trust me when I say for how much I despise liberals, this is not a viewpoint that cannot be allowed to gain hegemony, especially as we're nearing ecological collapse and working with a decidedly terrible healthcare system.
I agree scientific studies and their conclusions must and should be questioned, but questioned, not dismissed out of hand. You cannot conflate ridiculous academic preening with genuine rigorous experimentation and study, either.

>>865430
>And I have to disagree with the idea that anti-rational conservatives are more of a threat than alarmist pseudo-intellectual stuff like what this historian is pushing
Sure, but it's one thing to reject a moron spouting opinions from a place of authority, it's another to simply wave your hand and pretend data doesn't exist or does exist when you want it to.
I'll happily bash liberals for doing the same thing, but liberals do it over, I don't fucking know, transgender people, conservatives do it over climate change.
It's easy to see which is more damaging long term.
>>
>However, American conservatives are wildly anti-hard science as well, rejecting data studies and surveys in favor of unreasonable alternatives.
This isn't true. A minority of conservatives are stereotyped as "antivaxx" and such. They were right to be skeptical of the anti-HCQ narrative, as proven by the recent fauci emails. And they're right to question other "consensus", including the safety of an untested vaccine.

>especially as we're nearing ecological collapse
This is one example of the subtle, insidious nature of the ideological takeover of our institutions. Climate change has been exclusively one sided for decades. That doesn't even imply that any of the research is of poor quality or even false - the problem is that it is nearly impossible to find research which shows potential benefits from climate change. You're talking about a global change in climate, where deserts may see rainfall, where thawing permafrost creates millions of acres of fresh, fertile, arable land. But by the time the already one sided message is filtered through media to laymen, only belief in doomsday scenarios is socially acceptable. Which is why not accepting the so called consensus on climate change does not make a person anti-scientific, another republican stereotype.

But for a commie faggot at least most of your comment is on the right track.
>>
>>865488
Meant for >>865447
>>
>>865010
>>865168
>Heh stupid conservatives being against Yale academic elites!
Meanwhile at Yale: >>862931
>>
>>865488
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on vaccines because of how highly politicized the situation has become and how the media has spun a bipartisan issue into something conservatives only suffer the brunt of.
Not on climate change, though - global greening is a thing that's been discussed quite a bit and it's not going to offset the mass migration, damage to food chains and ecological systems, ocean acidification or any number of the predicted mass destructive consequences of rising temperatures. Again, I'll give a bit - it will not wipe out the human race, but it will vastly increase existing wealth disparity and will likely induce mass suffering. So I must side with the alarmist apocalypse-dreaming moronic liberals whose hearts are at least in the right place over conservatives who simply do not want to address this issue in any real way.
I may be a commie faggot but communism and socialism as a whole has been warped far beyond what it was by liberals and tankies, irreversibly, and I cannot forgive this. Of course I can't turn to conservatives for help for obvious reasons.
>>
>>865509
Show the fallacy this this fag is using.
>>
>>865096
They're all far-right terrorist attacks against the American government, so yes they are similar.
>>
>>864971
>The anti-voter laws proposed and passed by Republican state legislatures around the country move the scenario to its next step.
Passing a law requiring Voter ID and not allowing freestanding absentee ballot dump boxes to be open 24/7 are only anti-voter if you consider absentee ballot fraud “voting”
>>
>>865660
But anon, you can't get a valid ID without a birth certificate. That's racist.
>>
>>865095
You forgot reducing the white population to a vulnerable minority, promoting anti-white hate, promoting anti-white laws, promoting anti-man laws, promoting transexuality in children, spreading gender ideology.
>>
>>865168
>academic elitism equals being smart

Kek

>he's literally Anti education

Where did he write it?

>This is why you stupid faggots ACTUALLY think Donald Trump won, and lost due to a massive unproven conspiracy.

>millions of votes by mail, they stopped counting, delayed results for a week, victory that shatters historical records, in a country with unreliable intelligence community which has a history of manipulating elections

As a non-american I strongly believe you are a despicable mongoloid
>>
>>865657
>They're all far-right terrorist
>Pearl Harbor
>terrorist attack

Embarassing
>>
>>865679
even more embarrassing is lets look att these 3 situations and what else they had in common.all 3 were informed and high ranking members of intelligence and politicians knew that pearl harbor, 9/11, and this staged coup would happen, yet it was let to go through.what else do these 3 then follow suit with?demonising said groups/countries that were involved and a response almost too good not to be preplanned.the fact is and will be that they publish these absolutely ridiculous claims that can be proven wrong but dont want to take any, and i mean ANY information thats presented too them.we truly get to live in the most informed time and yet att the same time, the most uninformed time.willingness to ignorance is something truly unbelievable.
>>
>>865657
>NOOOOOO NOT THE HECKIN POLITICIANERINO
>NOOOT MUHHH AMERICAN DEMOCRACY
Trump was clearly a moron but hearing libs on the far right such as yourself crying about the supposed sanctity of the federal government shows your dirty hand.

The difference is that on 9/11 and Pearl Harbor, several thousands of innocents died. On 1/6, not enough non-innocents died.
>>
>>865690
I hate the liberal establishment but I think fascist takeovers are even worse, what's so hard about that to understand? I know you hate it when lefties actually start being pragmatic instead of just uselessly infighting.
>>
>>864969
>Snyder, who has written book with titles including, On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century, and Black Earth: The Holocaust as History and Warning
HOLY SHIT
those titles
those fuc,ing titles
he's not just an expert on tryrannny
he's a hyper-expert
>>
>>865010
Discounting soft science limp penis socailist associate profressors isnnot anti-science.
>>
>>864969
Trying to make it 9/11 upside down if you're curious if the conspiracy is still a foot it is.
>>
>>865395
>This isn't a study with empirical evidence that uses careful analysis of experimental groups and procedures, it's just an opinion piece

This sounds almost as bad as Trump's and 70% of Republicans opinion on the election results.

>>865208
>Nah, I'm just labeling you stupid and evil.

I don't believe the roots of evil lie in stupidity or ignorance.
One has to have knowledge that one is doing wrong to be truly evil.
Was Hitler truly"evil"?
Somewhat,but he believed Jews were going to destroy Germany and he was removing sub-humans .
What he did was evil, but he was ignorant of the fact that jews, gypsies, etc, were just as human as he.
Himmler was truly evil, because he didn't believe that the Jews were going to destroy Germany.
He just saw an opportunity to murder Jews to get ahead.
People like Hitler who do evil need enablers like Himmler.
In this sense, Stalin was much more evil than Hitler, because he saw that his type of communism was failing, and in the end, he just wanted power for powers sake, and starved millions of Ukrainians to death, and slaughtered his enemies in basements.

Trump is evil, as he has no belief system but power for the sake of power, and would murder millions if he could to keep it.
Josh Hawley, Tucker Carlson,Ted Cruz fit in this mold also.
Quite a few Republicans do, even a few democrats
>>
There is no comparison of 9-11 and 1-6.. So complete opposite you have to be nuts to try..
>>
You have to be very stupid to believe anything written in that article. Or a person that isn't too bright that hates just because someone told them to.. I wondered all my life how Hitler got the good people of Germany to go along with murdering innocent people..? Now I know because I see it in the left.. They would line people up and kill them just for fun..
>>
>>865720
Correct. 1/6 was far worse because it struck at the very foundation of US Democracy by attempting to overthrow the results of a legally certified Presidential election and install Trump as a monarch. 9/11 and Pearl Harbor were tactical attacks that did nothing to threaten US Democracy. 1/6 was on the level of the traitorous secession of the slave states in 1861. Fortunately, everyone with an IQ above 80 recognises that.
>>
>>864969
This is just plain crackpot journalism. Far out crazy to feed the weak of mind who believe anything if it feed their hate..
>>
>>865731
I was wondering what would happen to all the Trump haters after he is gone.. Now I see,, just continuing their frenzy of crazy even though there is nothing there any more..
>>
>>865731
Imagine being this deranged
>>
>>865719
Nah, that's all Republicans since they're a white supremacists party and know they are going to get wiped out due to their inflexibility and changes in demographics so they're opting to destroy the country through their soft coup plot.
>>
>>865736
Better tell that to the Republicans given this many believe in utter bullshit.
https://thehill.com/homenews/news/557486-one-third-of-republicans-believe-trump-will-be-reinstated-as-president-poll
>>
>>865751
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
>>
>>865752
It's not a fallacy if you're literally doing that.
>>
>>865751
>More than 8 in 10 Democrats — 84 percent — and 70 percent of independents also dismiss the notion that Trump will be made president after it is proven President Biden cheated in the election.

So 16% of Dems and 30% of independents also believe this?
>>
>>865793
They were trolling the survey.
>>
>>865793
If you poll 100 people and ask if they eat their own shit, ~10% of them will say yes because they are either trying to fuck with the poll, or they are just too goddamn dumb to understand the question. This is America.
>>
>>864969
Part of the country is religious and mocked by the left for believing in something that is not real.. The left believes there is voter suppression, systemic racism, police brutality.. Both sides believe in made up crap.. It's like stupid vs stupid.. All this while the serious stuff is ignored..
>>
>>865851
>there is voter suppression, systemic racism, police brutality
None of this is made up crap.
>>
>>865852
Many examples of these are made up by your side, yes.
Probably the one that was least often made up until 1.5 years ago was police brutality... Now a cop can't shoot someone who's literally trying to stab someone else without your side portraying it as brutality
>>
>>865855
>Many examples of these are made up by your side, yes.
Where do you get this from?
>>
>>865751
Am I just reading this data wrong? It doesn't separate the demographics on the specific question on Trump, it just says 19% of total respondents think it's at least somewhat likely he'll be reinstated as president.
Not to mention the majority of respondents are female, the majority are 45-64, the majority are conservative. So it seems like there's a bit of respondent bias where old Facebook moms (really, how dangerous) who believe stupid propaganda actively participated more to drive the number up. Also 1990 respondents with only a fraction being conservative/Republican doesn't really seem to be that it would represent the entire Republican Party well.
>>865852
Voter suppression...how, really? Asking people to show their IDs when they vote is too much?
>systemic racism
How so? It seems like the pendulum has swung the entire other way thanks to diversity quotas being so widespread.
>police brutality
A few thousand cases if that out of hundreds of thousands of officers would imply this is fairly rare.
>>
>>865859
>Voter suppression...how, really?
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/voting-laws-roundup-may-2021
>>systemic racism
>How so?
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/06/15/systemic-racism-what-does-mean/5343549002/
>A few thousand cases if that out of hundreds of thousands of officers
https://www.pnas.org/content/116/34/16793
>>
>>865826
So we are to trust a poll with what a significant margin of error due simply to human malice?
>>
>>865859
Quotas, legislation and government funded programs which explicitly use race/sex as a discriminator are systemic racism/sexism.
>>
>>865859
>Voter suppression...how, really? Asking people to show their IDs when they vote is too much?
Spinning the false narrative that the voting suppression laws are only about ID's aren't working among anyone other than your braindead base.
>>
>>865860
>voter suppression
So I asked you to explain to me how voter ID was a bad thing and gave me a source that simply noted the existence of more laws regarding voter ID. You're going to need to walk me through how this is a negative. I'm not really against being more strict on the voting process, but you're implying this is being done deliberately to "suppress" votes, from who exactly, and how?
>systemic racism
Okay, this is fair. I agree black people are more disadvantaged economically proportionately compared to other racial groups, if that's how you define systemic racism. What I'm not seeing is efforts to perpetuate this systemic racism, and in fact I am seeing quite an effort to overturn it, in particular things such as diversity quotas or affirmative action which are widespread in use.
>police brutality
Your own source is giving a 0.1% death rate of black people by police, and more specifically .05% for black men over their life course.
This is also rates of police killings per race, not the frequency at which cop killings occur.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-death-by-us-police-by-race/
This source puts the number of deaths by police at about 1000 each year. Note this does not say if these deaths are justified or not, or if some cops are repeat offenders.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/191694/number-of-law-enforcement-officers-in-the-us/
This source implies the number of cops in the US hovers around 700000, admittedly from 2019, but I doubt it's grown much.
So it would seem cops are pretty unlikely to kill you in the US, though there's definitely a racial bias in how they police black communities. Still doesn't seem like a gigantic issue we should be spotlighting every week now.
>>
>>865891
>Quotas, legislation and government funded programs which explicitly use race/sex as a discriminator are systemic racism/sexism
Only if it universally did so in favor of a singular race, you mean. It seems like quotas are done primarily to balance the playing field, which is fair.
>>865895
So what are the "voter suppression" laws about? Seems to me that showing or registering your ID should be a simple task if you're an American citizen. If you're not guilty of being an illegal immigrant, you have nothing to hide.
>>
>>864971
"Anti voter" law
Everything is Orwellian these days
>>
>>865891
The only people being discrimated by that definition are white people, and asian people in academia.
>>
>>865736
Let me know when he's gone... last I checked, all the Republicans and RW media are still sucking his cock because "heeth shtill the prethidenth!"
>>
>>865743
Imagine being this obtuse
>>
>>865898
>only if it did so in favor of a singular race
How so? So long as you are designing a system that specifically favors some races over others, that is racist. Whether a person believes that a single race is inferior to all others or that a single race is superior to all others, they are still a racist. If you enact policies that give preferential treatment to one or more races over another, that is racist. You can try to justify it anyway you want, but it still is racist.

>>865902
You seem unaware of the myriad grants and other such programs which use race and sex as qualifiers.
>>
>>865909
>So long as you are designing a system that specifically favors some races over others, that is racist
That's fair, if you designate 'racist' as believing races plural can be significant to others. I believe racism is a generally charged term - institutional discrimination seems to be more accurate.
Regardless, I don't think discrimination is always bad - if discrimination is used to lessen broader scale discrimination, then it can be good. If you want to argue broad scale discrimination can be justified via other factors, do you have statistics or studies to show this?
>>
>>865919
I usually just define racism as taking actions which gives preferentially treatment to one or more races over another. If we really want to get technical with it, we can expand this to some ethnicities since policies targeting Hispanics for example wouldn't be considered racist since they are a subset of a race, but it is kind of a gray area and I'm not really sure where the line should be drawn. Also I get your point about it being a charged term, but since racism is just a form of discrimination based on race I don't really see how your proposed term is any different. I would actually argue that trying to steer it away from being called racism makes the policies more palatable to the general public by softening the language. So again, if a person wants to argue their policies are "discriminating against/in favor of a particular race" then in my opinion they should be forced to admit that is racism. Even if the outcome is positive, it is still racist in implantation.
I'm also not trying to argue that any discrimination should be justified. Ideally we wouldn't feel the need for policies which target certain racial groups. Unfortunately, we just don't seem to be at that point yet and I honestly don't know if we ever will be.
>>
>>865328
>>865318
and even if it were democratically elected, that means China is most likely running the show. I can't see any country agreeing to that. Even if it werent democratically elected, there's no guarantee that "your guy" is going to stay in power, and there wouldnt be any agreement beforehand on who's guy is going to get power, since everyone would want their own guy
>>
>>865255
>Every scientific inquiry begins with a hypothesis. If you deny the right of people to disagree with you because that would be "anti-intellectual" then you deny science as a whole
you have to make an effort to prove the hypothesis via the scientific method. saying nuh-uh does not make your hypothesis any more valid
>>
>>865418
there are thousands of studies on opioid addiction potential and its severity. its also one of the only effective means of pain treatment. if you want to say we should prescribe less opioids, there are thousands of studies to choose from to back your claim. and you;d be right, they should be prescribed more responsibly. but essentially this has nothing to do with what you;re saying, because the information is there to make an argument rather than needing to rely on vague bullshit. you dont need to listen to pharma and doctors that make money on this shit, because you can point to the data. many people agree with you on this point, this isn't some secret knowledge
>>
>>865051
> like the US would EVER partner with China as a one nation unit.
China is exploiting the US by using gross amounts of wealth as political leverage anon. It already happened.

Seriously. The same dems in congress bitching about Trump and his treatment of migrants were unironically going to bat over China and the goods produced by slave labor. Our country is fucked.
>>
>>866166
>If you deny the right of people to disagree with you because that would be "anti-intellectual" then you deny science as a whole
You can't deny people the right to test or even form hypotheses that run counter to your consensus and then cry about "anti-intellectualism"
>>
>>866177
if you;re not testing your hypotheses, and instead simply stating and sticking to them without evidence, then you are anti-intellectual. there;s nothing wrong with forming hypotheses, but stating them as fact without tests or evidence is not, especially while throwing out all data to the contrary because you "feel" like your hypothesis is correct, again, without evidence
>>
>>865096
you're right, a direct threat to democracy is even worse. thats how you end up like the people flying planes into towers
>>
>>866186
You can't deny people the right to test or even form hypotheses that run counter to your consensus and then cry about "anti-intellectualism"

I'll repeat this as many times as I need to until you finally understand that I'm talking about corruption from academic and journalist institutions who use anti-intellectualism as a way to crush dissent and not Epic Fail Guy at his Thinkpad telling people the COVID vaccine makes your balls shrink.
>>
>>866175
>China is exploiting the US by using gross amounts of wealth as political leverage anon. It already happened.
oh so I can travel to China without a passport and live there?
that's not what "one nation" means, chump. but keep moving them goalposts
>>
>>865793
Given how much Trump has gotten away with they just assume he'll get away with a coup if he attempted it again.

>>865901
But that's what they are, the Texas AG even bragged the only reason Trump won Texas was because of voter suppression, aka anti-voter laws.
>>
>>865110
>Actually believing that republicans and democrats are that different
Peak brainlet
>>
The common root cause of all experience including emotions is the experiencer's own preconceptions, own rules, beliefs, biases, memory, judgment criteria, etc. As long as the sense of values do not change, the person repeats a similar experience. The stronger the attachment, the stronger the emotion.
How to interpret, react and deal with information is entirely up to each interpreter. "Disturbance of society, words, clothes, and morals" is a self-projection of the disorder of the person who feels it.
Dissatisfaction, anxiety, discomfort, scary, distrust, discomfort, and mystery are caused by each person's stereotypes, so it is irrelevant to blame others. Those who give inconvenience to others also gain inconvenience.
Therefore, even if you make someone angry, you have no cause for the other person's anger. Conversely, if someone offends you, the person has no cause for your anger.
Tolerant people who punish others, have low independence, have low problem-solving ability, and care about external evaluation need manners, courtesy, rules, and laws for emotional stability and self-defense.

"Emotions Self-Responsibility Theory"
>>
>>866873
One side (Republicans) just attempted a deadly coup, the other (Democrats) didn't.
There's a clear difference
>>
>>866942
They're both on the same side you gibbering retard, they're both heavily right wing, they're both authoritarian, they're both neoliberal, they're both comprised of mostly rich white old men backed by old money and nepotism
That one of them was particularly violent this election cycle doesn't absolve the fact they are practically the same organization just backed and supported by different corporations and certain groups
>>
>>866950
Again.
One side (Republicans) just attempted a deadly coup, the other (Democrats) didn't.
>>
>>866952
RightoidShillBot.exe has stopped working
>>
>>864969
Timothy Snyder is a massive schizo. Watch his "lectures" on yt if you dont believe me, extremely unpleasant character.
>>
>>866955
Care to refute the facts /pol/ppet?
Of course you can't.
>>
>>866996
Meant for
>>866950
>>
>>866957
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3nJrtKPI00
He sounds based and right on everything.
No wonder fascists hate him.
>>
>>866952
>One side (Republicans) just attempted a deadly coup, the other (Democrats) didn't
No, no, no! It was a typical tourist group visit where the magats were hugging and handing flowers to the Capitol Police before those nefarious, sinister Democrats brought in their antifa thugs to attempt to topple Democracy and install Trump king...er...wait a minute...er...uh...It was antifa and Democrats, ok?
>>
>>867066
See you can hate me all you want for thinking storming the Capitol is pretty based, but at least I'm not trying to gaslight and retcon the whole event as some sort of Democrat psyop
>>
>>866996
What facts lol?
The Democrats are
-Capitalist, so right wing
-Pro big government for solutions, so authoritarian
-Enjoy regulating free enterprise at all levels of the market to drive gain and following the traditions of guys like Reagan, so neoliberal
-I dont think I need to show Dems have a ton of old white fucks - the president is literally one
The only true major difference between them is that Democrats pander to liberals and Republicans to conservatives, who are also both solidly right wing authoritarian as well with conservatives being slightly more libertarian.
>>
>>866950
Jews arent white
>>
>>867102
Well, depends on who you talk to and what you're talking about.
If you're talking about the Holocaust they're not white and proud oppressed POC.
If you're talking about Israel they're the most mayo of mayo men.
>>
>>864969
>Yale historian Timothy Snyder, an expert on the Holocaust
So he's an expert liar?
>>
>>867100
>being pro-government = authoritarianism
>democrats regulate for regulations sake
>Reagan was a democrat because neoliberals exist
Jesus Christ read a book before you embarrass yourself even more.
>>
>>867108
>being pro-government = authoritarianism
That's...literally what authoritarian means.
>>democrats regulate for regulations sake
>>Reagan was a democrat because neoliberals exist
I like seeing people being so politically illiterate. No, Democrats do not regulate for regulations' sake, they do it because they wish to drive up competition and strong trade agreements because that's believed to be the cornerstone of a free and just society, despite the fact this tends more often than not to prop up the already wealthy and elite even further and make the poor even more desperate for scraps.
Reagan was not a Democrat, but he was a neoliberal (you're attaching liberal to neoliberal and then Democrat, fucking lol) he practiced it very heavily through policy and it's the reason why U.S. politics has swung so far to the right that even 'leftists' like Bernie or SocDems tend to be centrist at best.
>>
>>867117
I see. So that's a negative on reading books and learning so you don't sound like a blithering fool, I guess.
>>
>>867169
Nice argument, bud. Tell me, which books should I be reading? I'd like to know a book that says being pro-government isn't authoritarian.
>>
>>867172
>I'd like to know a book that says being pro-government isn't authoritarian.
communist manifesto, Karl marx and Frederick Engels
>>
>>867178
All right. Please explain how the Communist Manifesto says that being authoritarian isn't pro-government and how Marx and Engels apparently said this in other works. I'm sure you're capable of making a sound argument on this.
>>
>>865169
One event had only 5 people die, and 4 of them were the "insurrectionists" you hate so much. The others had no less than 2,000 deaths for either event.

Welcome myself back from vacation where I have to teach /news/ how to count again.
>>
>>865169
I got to agree with him, but you probably know this is true I'm sure you're just an idiot shilling either willingly for free or in an Indian shill factory.

In no single quantifiable metric can you compare the two within two orders of magnitude unless if you are just extracting empirical measures out of your ass
>>
>>865720
Both were committed by kikes
>>
>>867106
I am replying to what i presume to be my own post but cant remember if I only thought this, or actually replied it, but this person is correct. Who may or may not be me.
>>
If Trump is bad for putting up a wall to safeguard America, what does that make Biden who put a wall up around Washington? Evil?? Demonic??? Reality will never make a dent in the Leftist tribal world view, where 'Our Democracy' does not include You, the voting electorate.
>>
>>867367
Well, he isn't tearing down Trump's wall so it must not have been too bad of an idea.
>>
>>867367
Ivanka forced Big Daddy Bone Spur to build the unscalable wall around the white house because he kept filling his diapers in the bunker whenever a handful of peaceful protestors were demonstrating in Washington Square.
>>
>>867367
Trumpty Dumpty sat on a wall
Trumpty Dumpty had a great fall
All the king's horses and all the king's men
Couldn't put Trumpty together again.
>>
>boomers hopping a red rope is an attempted coup
oh I am laffin, read about actual coups orchestrated by the CIA then get back to me
>>
>>867315
>Deaths are the only indicator for damage.
Downfall of a democratic system that lasted for over 2 centuries is much worse than 3 buildings coming down.
>>
>>867459
This. The right likes to pretend that an attack attempting to overthrow the very foundation of America, Democracy and the Constitution, after numerous and ceaseless attempted legal remedies like 60+ court cases and even in the Trump/Mitch stacked SC lost and multiple recounts and independent audits failed, pales in comparison to tactical military strikes on the US like 9/11 or Pearl Harbor which did not threaten America itself but were simply a bee sting that prompted action to eliminate the hive. In 1/6, Trump and his minions attempted to overthrow the legally certified US election results because Democracy and Constitutional processes hurt their feefees.

Everyone who was called "alarmist" when they called Trump an existential threat to America and the world was proven correct on 1/6. Don't let the GOP Trump cult get away with gaslighting this.
>>
>>867199
>Looks like liberals are already making excuses for the big loss they know is coming
Liberals don't win elections in this country. Maybe a rando here and there like Bernie or AOC, but broadly, Liberals have been losing since the mid 70s. It's why this country gone into the shiter.
>>
>>867385
Why bother to tear it down when they can just get a ladder and climb over?
>>
>>867463
>The right likes to pretend that an attack attempting to overthrow the very foundation of America, Democracy and the Constitution
Let me just ask you something. Do you think CHAZ/CHOP was similarly sedition and all the people who participated in that should be hunted down and prosecuted as well?
>>
>>867467
>Liberals don't win elections in this country
You mean lefties don't win elections in this country, Joe Biden and his ilk are very much liberal. Bernie and AOC are barely left as it is.
It's because of the liberals actually this country has gone down the shitter, by co opting lefty ideals without praxis or meaningful change while over-engaging in partisan politics and ridiculous culture war with conservatives.

>>867463
Fuck America, Democracy, and the Constitution.
Trump is an evil money grubbing bougie piece of shit and the capitol rioters were complaining one far right dictator beat another far right dictator, but I'm glad those politicians got scared for once in their miserable slaver lives.
So you're wrong - 9/11 and Pearl Harbor are still worse than the capitol riot because thousands of innocents died. Not one guilty Porky died on 1/6.
You and your kind either will wisen up to the fact those 'poor and threatened' elites you're simping for elicited your exact pearl clutching response to protect their interests or you'll die when America burns down.
>>
>>865310
Go watch how the UN is run. The women's conciel or WHO in particular. You're viewing it from a US running the show perspective but the reality is such a government would be tempered by those who also have strong wealth such as Saudi, China, Russia, etc.

The gov would also have little to no bite because people are only willing to live and die for causes they see. Its why our federal gov barely has to go hard and heavy will pro military shit all the time.
>>
>>865100
I-is this Minneapolis?
>>
>>867470
CHAZ was the equivalent of goofball Ammon Bundy's standoffs only perpetrated in a metropolitan area instead of bumfuck nowhere. Neither have any equivalency with the 1/6 insurrection striking at the very foundation of the US.
>>
>>867494
>striking at the very foundation of the US.
You realize you sound like an old woman complaining about rock music when you say shit like this, right?
>>
>>867494
>CHAZ was the equivalent of goofball Ammon Bundy's standoffs only
they murdered people
>>
>>867494
I'm not really asking you to compare the magnitude of both - I'm just asking you if you think CHAZ was sedition and the people who participated should be hunted down similarly. Their stated goal was anarchocommunism and secession from the US and democracy. That seems pretty traitorous to me, I'm just curious to hear your thoughts.
>>
>>867498
So did Bundy's merry band of pranksters.

Interesting to note, the Native American, Leonard Peltier, who pulled an Ammon Bundy ended up serving a life prison sentence while Bundy gets to run for Governor of some shithole Satan's anus.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Peltier
>>
>>867505
>So did Bundy's merry band of pranksters.
No, they did not.

> Leonard Peltier, who pulled an Ammon Bundy ended up serving a life prison sentence while Bundy gets to run for Governor of some shithole Satan's anus
Probably because Peltier actually killed people and Bundy didn't
>>
>>867506
>Probably because Peltier actually killed people and Bundy didn't
False. Read the article. Peltier is more innocent than Bundy. Bundy keeps doubling down on being a Neanderthal as well, whereas Peltier has not. But given Native Americans have Asian DNA, Peltier's IQ is significantly higher than that lower life form, Bundy.
>>
>>867452
>attempt to thwart the peaceful transition of power
definition of a coup
>>
>>867494
Except there have been multiple autonomous zones now in multiple states, all following the same marxist inspired ideology and explicitly calling for revolution, in a distributed, semi-coordinated fashion, effectively marching under the same banner as a year's worth of riots, where the chants have similarly called for revolution repeatedly.

The insurrection started long before 1/6 and it is a nationwide movement.
>>
>>867498
Children too
>>
>>867543
You couldn't define Marxism if Marx sat in front of you and explained it in detail. Which is obvious, since he did do that in his writings and you have no idea what he said.
>>
>>867562
The first line of the first chapter of the communist manifesto reads as follows:

"The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles"

The entire premise behind marxism is the reductive view of history exclusively through the lens of oppressor vs oppressee, identical to the rhetoric of BLM/antifa.

Perhaps it is you who should read the literature, rather than relying on the tired trope that anyone right of center just doesn't understand what marxism is. It's toxic because at the shallow level of understanding that a faggot like you would get from listening to revolutionaries preach out of megaphones at BLM riots is general enough to really seem like it makes sense. But midwitted trannies like yourself don't grasp that this is a myopic and inadequate examination of history - but it's great for convincing frustrated, incompetent people to band together and commit violence against a scapegoat; say, like the evil white man, who has replaced the bourgeois in the script this time around.

Degenerate retard. You probably haven't even read any of the theory you masturbate to with your invalid friends.
>>
>>867470
False equivalency, CHAZ was the police abandoning a part of the city, 1/6 was a violent coup d'etat attempt.
If you want something that is equatable to the 1/6 coup d'etat, look at the terrorist attack that occurred on the Oregon State Capitol where a Republican state rep was just expelled for his role in the attack.
>>
>>867574
Retarded take. Police abandon zones like CHAZ because of violence from insurrectionists.
>>
>>867494
>CHAZ was the equivalent of goofball Ammon Bundy's standoffs
Except for the part where the government threw Bundy in jail but left CHAZ alone.
>>
>>867579
Nah, fact take, unless you count people using Hong Kong tactics against violent police to be an insurrection, then you'd be a fascist.
>>
>>867459
>Downfall of a democratic system
>lol it was only 3 buildings. This was much worse
Can you spin any harder? At no point in time was democracy itself threatened by a bunch of retired boomers. Even if they somehow did get through bodyguards and kidnapped/killed congress that wouldn't change the entire system. Also go fuck yourself with your it-was-just-3-buildings-big-freaking-deal.

>>867463
>This.
>attempting to overthrow the very foundation of America, Democracy and the Constitution
>pales in comparison to tactical military strikes on the US like 9/11 or Pearl Harbor which did not threaten America itself but were simply a bee sting
And this is why nobody takes you seriously.
>>
>>867586
>At no point in time was democracy itself threatened by a bunch of retired boomers.
Proof? Because they did a good job disrupting the peaceful transfer of power and if they didn't have bad luck or acted full retard, they would assassinated multiple members of the government.
No matter what your opinion was, even if it's wrong, 1/6 was a coup attempt.
>>
>>867587
>Because they did a good job disrupting the peaceful transfer of power
They did? I'm pretty sure Biden is in office.
> they would assassinated multiple members of the government.
With no fucking guns on them.
>in before nuh uh they left them in the car!

>No matter what your opinion was, even if it's wrong, 1/6 was a coup attempt.
Even if that were true (it's not) you are both mind-numbingly fucking pants-on-head retarded for saying this was worse than either 9/11 or Pearl Harbor - and the anon who said those were mere bee stings deserves cancer.
>>
>>867604
>They did? I'm pretty sure Biden is in office.
Disrupt, not stop. Hence it was a coup attempt.

>With no fucking guns on them.
Ah, you're the shill that keeps forcing the meme that you need to have guns to stage a coup. First, coups existed before fire arms, second, >>865693

>Bah bah It's not a coup because I got to gaslight
No, it was a coup, a group that studies coups came that that conclusion.
https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2021/was-the-jan-6-attack-on-the-capitol-an-attempted-coup-an-academic-group-now-says-yes/
All you're doing now is a cope d'etat
>>
>>867607
Back to the original question. Even as a coup attempt, is it as bad or worse than two successful attacks that killed thousands and drug us into wars?
>>
>>867607
>Disrupt, not stop. Hence it was a coup attempt.
Let's play Devil's Advocate. Assuming they were there to kill all of congress, what was the next move? They go in there and wipe out congress. What happens next? Democracy is just over with? No. The next person in line now becomes congressman and since they're not at the Capitol they're safe while the FBI kills everyone else.

>First, coups existed before fire arms
Yeah but seeing as we're not in fucking ancient Rome anymore you'd have to assume you would need modern equipment for a modern-day coup. At least plan for the possibility of bodyguards armed with pistols.
>second, >>865693
Remember earlier when I said
>in before nuh uh they left them in the car!
Also you're the shill that keeps forcing the meme of an "armed strike force" who again didn't have any weapons on then... so technically they weren't armed. Guns sitting in their hotels or parked cars don't count as armed.
>in before nuh uh that one guy had a pistol they caught 6 hours after the event outside the building
>in before you can't into in before again

>a group that studies coups
Yeah I don't give a shit about your far-left .org blog.
>>
>>867619
Not him but I think you're assuming the insurrectionists had a plan and weren't simply hoodwinked into thinking Trump was going to march with them on the Capitol like he said he was in the speech at the rally that morning. It's funny how 99% of the 500+ suspects arrested so far have pled not-guilty by reason of becoming radicalized by Trump and his campaign, or by Trump-friendly media telling them the election is fake, Joe Biden is the devil, and only rising up against democrats in power can save America from ruin.
>>
>>867619
>Let's play Devil's Advocate.
If the coup forces did complete their objective and managed to assassinate enough congressional democrats as was their plan based on the capture/kill teams they had, it would have shifted control of congress back to the Republicans who would have refuted to certified the election and force a vote in congress, which Trump would have won given each state gets one vote, and more states are controlled by republicans. This in itself is a soft cope. Likewise, say the coup forces were successful in assassinating Pence or other high ranking members only, Trump could have invoked the insurrection act and cancelled the election to stay in power, again, a soft coup. So yes, you're seeing the overthrow of the government to keep Trump in power and ignoring the will of the people.

>Yeah but seeing as we're not in fucking ancient Rome anymore
Yet you don't need guns to stage a coup.

>Remember earlier when I said
Moving the goalposts. They were armed, and intended to capture/kill members of congress to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power and install Trump as a dictator.

That's a coup no matter how much you coup.
>>
>>867574
>False equivalency,
Where am I equating the two in terms of damage done or influence? It's not a false equivalence to call robbing a liquor store and killing a man both crimes.
>was the police abandoning a part of the city
And the creation of CHAZ/CHOP itself by people who, definitionally, seemed to be insurrectionists against democracy who wished to establish an anarcho-communist state, and formed their own private defense force.
I'm just curious how you or that one guy or anyone who thinks the Capitol event was an insurrection feels about it.
>>
>>867469
Because the border wall is a scar on our country and Biden should tear it down
>>
>>867623
>it would have shifted control of congress back to the Republicans
How? Those positions aren't erased because a congressman dies. They don't lose votes because someone dies. The next person in line fills in. Google chain of command.

>Yet you don't need guns to stage a coup.
You do in this century. Name a successful coup in the last 100 years that didn't involve guns.

>Moving the goalposts.
No. Not moving the goalposts.
> They were armed
No they weren't. If I leave my gun in my car to go grocery shopping I am not armed in the grocery store.
>>
>>867567
>The entire premise behind marxism is the reductive view of history exclusively through the lens of oppressor vs oppressee
So you don't understand it. Great.
Marxism is a materialistic (and this is not a negative connotation) view of the world where people's drives are shaped more by what is created by other people than by singular entities. The economic structure of society is created by essentially the will of groups known as 'classes' reaffirming their position within a hierarchy based on certain production relations, and THEN we get to the part where relationships between classes often tends to be one of conflict (Marx also focused heavily on the means available to people who wish to control production, i.e. technology).
The 'relationship between classes' bit is very important to the birth of ideas like communism and how we can analyze capitalism, but, well, don't be reductive.
Also, most Marxists literally do not agree with Marx...most admit he got a lot of shit wrong, they agree with you that history cannot solely be described by class warfare, this is literally where Marxist-Leninism came from, Lenin's criticisms of Marx.
>BLM riots
>like the evil white man,
A lot of what you're complaining about is liberal activism...if you think the radical left is some gigantic monolith who's ready to seize power worldwide I'm sorry to disappoint you.
There are people here who suck off China, people here obsessed with idpol, people who hate idpol (look up class/race reductionism), liberals who think they're socialists, doomers, people who watch BreadTube and thus tend to have an inconsistent view of what left means or espouses, people who think we should embrace conservatives and others liberals, some who want bloody revolution and others who don't, etc, etc...the only unifier is that we dislike capitalism and even then Social Democrats exist and happen to be the most powerful lefties in America (and not very strong at that).
Quit being hysterical.
>>
>>864969
In a nutshell: leftists are preparing to rig the 2024 election the same as last time, and we’re just getting cover stories for it a bit earlier than expected. Going to be fun hearing about how printers have the right to vote 10k times a machine.
>>
>>867642
It's literally a conspiracy theory to point out that voting machines in new Hampshire undercounted gop votes 68% because of a "folding error"
>>
>>867637
>I don't understand how the US government works can be exploited.
Just because remembers of the house are assassinate, doesn't mean business stops, you only need half of the normal house to call a quorum. I'd tell you to look it up, but you're confusing the line of succession for the president with the legislators, which is apples and a fascist orange.

>You do in this century.
Moving the goalposts, you claimed you need guns to stage a coup, that is incorrect when you apply the facts.

>No they weren't.
Yes they were no matter how many times you try and lie.
>>
So let me go back and start from the top. Sort of recap here: the 1/6 protest was worse than 9/11 and Pearl Harbor. Do I got the gist of this thread right?

So 9/11... lets set aside all those dead people for a second. An attack on the world trade centers which led to a global economic recession and pulled everyone into an endless war with the Middle East, plus destroying part of the Pentagon, the headquarters of the Department of Defense for those who don't know, and an attempt from flight 93 - let me grab the quote real quick and make sure I get this right:
> Investigators were unable to determine the exact target of Flight 93 but concluded the plane was planned to crash into the Capitol Building or the White House.
So either the executive branch or the legislative branch, so their attempt at obviously trying to kill either branch wasn't as bad as the 1/6 protests - where we can't even agree if they wanted to kill said branch - that isn't as bad as the 1/6 Capitol protests.... ???

So the fucking terrorists on 9/11 who we know were trying to kill congress are not as bad as a bunch of old boomers who may or may not have wanted to kill congress.
... Yeah okay.

And Pearl Harbor. Again we'll put the dead behind us because democrats don't give a fuck about dead people unless they can profit from it somehow. So about 30% of the ENTIRE MOTHER FUCKING US NAVY lost in one blow, please correct me if I'm wrong, about half of the Navy's battleships and a quarter of smaller ships by a fucking foreign power with a much larger navy than the west at that time with 15 fucking carriers, 12 battleships, all and all had the fucking allies outgunned in the beginning in the middle of a FUCKING WORLD WAR .... That isn't as bad as what went down in the Capitol.

Y'know maybe I'm just an old boomer. Maybe I've been on 4chan so long that I'm cynical towards everything. But I'm calling bullshit. How ANYONE can say that 1/6 was worse than either of those with a straight face... I can't.
>>
>>867650
>you only need half of the normal house to call a quorum.
Sure let me call a quorum in the middle of a hostage situation. Really?

> that is incorrect when you apply the facts.
So again name a modern successful coup that didn't use firearms.

>No they weren't.
>Yes they were
Yeah this is going no where. If you don't have a weapon on you, you are not armed. End of line. Line ends here. Bitch all you want. Unarmed = unarmed. Guns not on a person = unarmed. Guns, grenades, molotovs, etc. inna hotel = not on a person.
>>
>>867653
Because you've already lost by letting whackjobs frame the debate.

The true take is that 9/11, Pearl Harbor, and the Capitol riots were all terrible events and trying to compare them or rank them like they're Pokemon or whatever is a pointless exercise of bored wealthy suburban kids at best and a desensitized, horrible propaganda attempt that tries to make 'current bad thing' look worse by juxtaposing it next to some historical atrocity.

It also keeps American citizens firmly divided against each other instead of the institutions responsible for the unrest.
>>
>>867653
>Strawmen the post.
>Cares about property only like a good conservative
>Doesn't care about democracy like a good conservative
Yup
>>
>>868642
What part of this was strawman? People ITT unironically think 1/6 was worse than 9/11.
>>
>>864969
>1/6 to 9/11

So a bunch of oppressed people striking back at the USA for stealing their shit? Because that's what 9/11 was.
>>
>>865310
>There’s nothing wrong with the idea of a one world government, either.

Cultureless whites would think everyone being the same is A-OK.
>>
>>866950
yeah jews aren't white, and those are the ones in highest seats.or if not jews then zionist.
>>
>>867459
for who?you or the iraqis you cubic retard.
>>
>>868690
How is Israel oppressed?
>>
>>867643
I thought it was dust in the scanners?

I remember them using that excuse, rerunning the ballots, and instead of 68% it was like 48%. Case closed kek
>>
>>867619
See >>866723
>>
>>868960
So the voting machines on the third attempt undercounted by only 48% in stead of 68%
Should I feel relieved?
>>
>>868963
You should feel relieved that the standard method used to audit elections discovered a discrepancy, the discrepancy was investigated, and the source of the discrepancy was discovered.
>>
>>868960
>>868963
It was literally an issue discovered by certified auditors (not the AZ grifter clown Big Lie supporters) in 1 small town in NH where the exact layout of the ballot caused archaic voting machines to place a crease over an oval causing miscounts. Furthermore, the Orange Fool wasn't even on the ballot, the race was called for a Republican even WITH the miscounted ballots (the audit was requested by the Dem loser) and the auditors being real certified election auditors instead of con men hired to manufacture fraud, stated it was definitely not fraud that caused the error.

Yet you pretend it was evidence of massive fraud in NH. This is why no one except other zombie cultists believes any of you election fraudsters or will believe anything shit out of the fake audit bamboo sawdust 3 ring circus in AZ.
>>
The common root cause of all experience including emotions is the experiencer's own preconceptions, own rules, beliefs, biases, memory, judgment criteria, etc. As long as the sense of values do not change, the person repeats a similar experience. The stronger the attachment, the stronger the emotion.
How to interpret, react and deal with information is entirely up to each interpreter. "Disturbance of society, words, clothes, and morals" is a self-projection of the disorder of the person who feels it.
Dissatisfaction, anxiety, discomfort, scary, distrust, discomfort, and mystery are caused by each person's stereotypes, so it is irrelevant to blame others. Those who give inconvenience to others also gain inconvenience.
Therefore, even if you make someone angry, you have no cause for the other person's anger. Conversely, if someone offends you, the person has no cause for your anger.
Tolerant people who punish others, have low independence, have low problem-solving ability, and care about external evaluation need manners, courtesy, rules, and laws for emotional stability and self-defense.

"Emotions Self-Responsibility Theory"
>>
>>868644
>People ITT unironically think 1/6 was worse than 9/11.
Because it was.
>>
>>869781
No it wasn't.
>>
>>869822
It was for biden and democrats.
They care more about staying in power than hijacked planes being used to murder thousands
>>
>>869013
Those werent certified auditors anon. They had experience, and perhaps were certified at one point, i.e. Harri Hursti, but we only have two certified auditors for the entire country. Both are inexperienced, and work for the voting machine manufacturers (as do the people who decide who gets certified)
https://imgpile.com/images/N5j3M3.jpg
>>
>>864969
>Yale historian Timothy Snyder
>YALE

Yeah, he can go pound sand. Just another worthless hystericrat.
>>
>>869836
>certified
LOL
>>
>>868644
>>869822
>>869830
9/11 while horrible, was simply a tactical strike like Pearl Harbor. It did not threaten the very foundation of America itself. 1/6, even by the perpetrators own admission, was a violent insurrection/coup attempting to overthrow Democracy and preventing the acceptance of the legally certified state electoral votes as mandated by the Constitution in order to illegally keep Trump as President. Iow, an attack on the very foundation of the US - far, far worse than tactical strikes with a far more insidious and dangerous impact on the fabric of the country.

We ignore that fact like the GOP enablers of it wish us to do at our own dire peril.
>>
>>869932
>9/11 while horrible, was simply a tactical strike like Pearl Harbor.
With one flight aimed at either the White House or the Capitol building. So much more of a threat than a mob of unarmed rioters (before you even start, zipties are not a weapon and leaving a gun in your car means you are unarmed).

> It did not threaten the very foundation of America itself.
Nor did 1/6. Even if it they succeeded in capturing or killing congressmen, this wouldn't have changed our system. I still haven't gotten an answer to how this would have happened. Even if all the Democrats in congress were killed off, making the Republicans the majority, they wouldn't be able to hold a quorum in the middle of a hostage situation. The next Democrat in line would replace anyone killed off.

> far, far worse than tactical strikes with a far more insidious and dangerous impact on the fabric of the country.
And I strongly disagree. The economic impact alone from the world trade towers being destroyed did more damage to the country, and the world, than anything that could have been done by 1/6.
>>
>>869932
>Interrupting a ceremonial counting of votes, that even if successful, would have had no outcome on the election
>A successful, coordinated attack on financial, military, and political targets resulting in thousands of deaths, billions of dollars in damages and setting the country on a path to 20 years of war.

The GOP should have thrown the rioters and trump under the bus, but these two events are in no way equal.
>>
>>869936
>ZIpties are not weapon
The fact they were there to capture and assassinate and use the zipties as restraints to do it means very much they are weapon
>>
>>869979
Maybe had the Democrats spent the summer throwing their own rioters under the bus Republicans would do the same.
>>
>>865142
>republicans are free market

haha printer go brrrr for banks.
>>
>>870882
>How do we spin these riots?
>Call them mostly peaceful protests, that should work
>>
>>870882
This
...and this >>870904
>>
>>870881
Zip ties are NOT a weapon. Fuck off with this bullshit. The Capitol was in danger from zip ties, do you have any idea how retarded you sound?
>>
>>871062
Zip ties are a popular murder weapon. There is no doubt about the terrorist's intentions.
>>
>>871068
>Zip ties are a popular murder weapon.
Source?

>There is no doubt about the terrorist's intentions.
Zip tie guy was wearing a load-bearing vest but didn't think to bring ammunition or a gun. Maybe he was just a larping piece of shit that would even embarrass /k/.
>>
>>871062
>>871069
Doesn't matter what your retarded definition of "deadly weapon" is, the Federal definition includes a myriad of arms the insurrectionists possessed and used seriously injuring 140+ police officers which is why 40+ of the traitors have been charged with possession of deadly weapons as of 6/13. That number is certainly higher now since 550+ have been arrested. Also 3 have been charged with firearms violations. But since no one was arrested the day of the insurrection, who knows how many of those rabid 2A drooling fanatics were concealed carrying? I'd bet my Hunteresque member that it was at least 10%-20%.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/capitol-riot-arrests-latest-2021-06-11/

https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/capitol-breach-cases
>>
>>870881
>assassinate
With what? Were they planning to bludgeon them with Pelosi's podium?
>>
>>871073
>Doesn't matter what your retarded definition of "deadly weapon" is
Coming from the guy who thinks zip ties are a popular murder weapon.

>which is why 40+ of the traitors have been charged with possession of deadly weapons as of 6/13.
The government going HAM on protesters because they scared the elite. What a shock.

>Also 3 have been charged with firearms violations.
One guy who was found carrying outside the building at night 6 hours after everyone was cleared out and the rest either had guns in their cars or at their hotels. Not one example can you give of anyone bringing a gun into the Capitol. Hell you faggots were so desperate in other threads that you tried to argue that zip tie guy had a pistol in his holster instead of a tazer.
>>
>>871085
>Coming from the guy who thinks zip ties are a popular murder weapon.
good luck explaining that to the cops when you're breaking and entering
"no officer, I was just going for a jog thru this restricted area to give my zip ties a walk"
>>
>>871091
Show me one person who has ever been murdered by zip ties. I'm pretty sure the shoes you're wearing qualify more as weapons than fucking zip ties.
>>
>>871083
Or use one of the many other weapons they brought with them during the coup attempt.
>>
>>871085
>The government going HAM on protesters
Anon, you and the Trump GOP need to get it thru your thick Neanderthal skulls it was insurrectionists attempting to overthrow Democracy and crown Trump King for Life. That is obvious by the insurrectionists' own statements to officials, communications intercepts and the unfolding of events everyone witnessed on live video on that day of infamy with even more horror than 9/11.

And also by the reptile-like shedding of skins the GOP has gone thru attempting to find the right false narrative to spin:
The violence was justified 'cause the courts, Republican election officials, the DHS, DOJ, Pence and Congress were a confederacy of dunces not recognising Dear Leader's God ordained rightful position to remain on the throne; er...it was all antifa and Democrat false flaggers who attacked the Capitol; er...there was no violence, they were literally hugging the police and handing out flowers; er...it was like a tourist group who were just a little rowdy; er...they were just exercising their 1A right to protest; er...we're retarded, can't you tell?
>>
>>871105
>it was like a tourist group who were just a little rowdy
Yeah I'ma stop right here. I never got an answer from the last thread:
Show me the posts. Who said it was just a tourist group? I'm not even dealing with the rest of your post until you answer this question. I'm sick of this shit.
>>
>>871097
Zip ties could be used to strangle someone, I suppose.
>>
>>871112
>Show me the posts.
Not him but I'll show you something better than random 4chan posts: a statement from a sitting US Representative.
>https://www.businessinsider.com/gop-rep-says-calling-january-6-insurrection-is-a-bold-faced-lie-2021-5
>GOP Rep. Andrew Clyde said calling the January 6 insurrection an insurrection is a "bald-faced lie" and likened the rioters to tourists during a House Oversight Committee hearing on the riots.
>"Watching the TV footage of those who entered the Capitol and walked through Statuary Hall showed people in an orderly fashion staying between the...ropes taking videos and pictures. You know, if you didn't know the TV footage was a video from January the 6th, you would actually think it was a normal tourist visit," he said.
>>
>>871319
Okay I'll give you this one, you at least gave me something, but I just want to say I had no idea who this motherfucker is until I just now googled him and he's too far to the right for even me. I was expecting him to be from Florida.

Alright, whatever. You at least gave me one guy to fuck everything up.
>>
>>871321
Comically enough I don't know him either outside of this statement, and I'm the guy who linked him. The House is just filled with random irrelevant dudes who make dumb statements, which makes sense since they only have 2 years to make their case for reelection and there's 435 of them trying to share the spotlight. Just appearing in the news is good enough for a lot of them, hence characters like Cortez and Green making inflammatory statements all the time.
Sadly enough you could probably find a Rep making each argument listed in >>871105's post, this guy was just the only one I immediately knew was a real statement from a politician and not some irrelevant talking head or internet post.





Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.