Holy Crap - The Revolution is about to start

[Loren Pechtel]

I'll say it again, intelligence is not what you know, it's what you do with what you know.

I thik that is more like wisdom. And one can be intelligent without being wise.

Yup. Intelligence is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is knowing not to put it in fruit salad.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Here is an anlysis of Hitler, who by some estimates may have had an IQ as high as 150, by some of his top stooges who themselves had above-average IQs. I should hedge that by saying I don’t put too much stock in IQ tests. Still, the testimony of these and many others paint HItler as a very intelligent man with a powerful personality who committed horrific crimes and led his nation to total disaster. Intelligence and character are not the same thing. Of course one could simply define someone who commits terrible crimes and does stuff that ends disastrously as unintelligent, but I think the reasoning there is circular.

Note, also, that high intelligence, low morality people are prone to failing badly on the big stage.

Earlier in life they are above their peers and can play them pretty well. Once the stage gets big enough they're facing others of their level, or coordinated activities of those somewhat below their level and can no longer actually get away with playing them--but they don't realize this.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No way? What are you even talking about? Russia today is way more capitalist than it was in the Soviet Union era! The U.S. could have played a huge role in shaping that, but they completely missed the mark by trying to do too much at once while at the same time treating Russia like it could never be part of the team.

They abandoned communism, but went kleptocracy, not democracy. What we saw was just a step in the looting.

 

[pood]

No way? What are you even talking about? Russia today is way more capitalist than it was in the Soviet Union era! The U.S. could have played a huge role in shaping that, but they completely missed the mark by trying to do too much at once while at the same time treating Russia like it could never be part of the team.

They abandoned communism, but went kleptocracy, not democracy. What we saw was just a step in the looting.

Of course, Communism is just another kleptocracy.

 

[Emily Lake]

If Trump wins and a bunch of democrats launch some violence, I'll be here to say "I told you so" since you have convinced yourself that's not a plausible outcome.

It seems to me that Trump's people are likely to perpetrate violence either way. They certainly did last time. Speaking from my little corner of the world, some of the worst violent incidents we have ever seen in the history of the college campus where I work happened in the months following the 2016 election, as emboldened local hate groups took aim at students they believed to be undocumented.

But while we should be prepared for that reality, individual vigilante justice is not the only way to deal with terroristic threats, that is the role of the police and legal system, or in the case of interstate organizations, the federal government.

Why did you trim my quote where you did? Is it your intent to mischaracterize my view? Do you believe that if you ignore the sentence immediately preceding that, it doesn't exist? Do you think that by selectively snipping out my acknowledgement that the right is prone to violence, it somehow transmutes reality into me only calling out the left?

This is what I said:

I suppose we'll see. If Harris wins and a bunch of republicans launch some violence, neither of us will be surprised. If Trump wins and a bunch of democrats launch some violence, I'll be here to say "I told you so" since you have convinced yourself that's not a plausible outcome.

Because that was the only portion relevant to my response.

Only because your response ignores context and attempts to mischaracterize the interaction.

 

[Emily Lake]

So you make up an outlandish (both sides) hypothesis and when people aren't supporting, you just keep assuming your baseless assumptions are accurate.

Sure, sure... progressives and leftists NEVER engage in unwarranted violence.

Far-right violence a growing threat and law enforcement's top domestic terrorism concern

The Proud Boys played a critical part in carrying out the Jan. 6 attack, but the group is just one part of a trend of increased white supremacist and far-right violence. Top U.S. law enforcement officials say those extremist movements are the biggest domestic terrorism threat facing the country...

www.pbs.org

Strange how we don't see similar articles about the left.

It gets framed differently. When it's antifa setting buildings on fire with people in them, it's a "mostly peaceful" protest where it's "understandable that emotions run high" and "it's just a few outliers" among the sea of black-clad balaclava-wearing hooligans.

No, you don't see articles about it. It's less prevalent, but it's not absent. An unbiased person might ask why you don't hear about it in the media.

Anarchist Violent Extremism in America | Program on Extremism | The George Washington University

Anarchist Violent Extremism in America

extremism.gwu.edu

Subcommittee Chair Bishop: “It’s Past Time We Recognize Left-Wing Violence for What it is” – Committee on Homeland Security

homeland.house.gov

The Escalating Terrorism Problem in the United States

The United States faces a growing terrorism problem that will likely worsen in the next year, particularly around the 2020 presidential election. The most significant threat likely comes from white supremacists, though anarchists and religious extremists could also pose a threat.

www.csis.org

Good lord. Your own last link cites "white supremacists". Are they lefties too?

Oh FFS. I haven't suggested or even remotely implied that right wing violence is not a problem. It's a larger problem currently than left wing violence is. But at least I fucking acknowledge that left wing violence isn't just some made up fantasy, that it's a real thing that does actually fucking happen! My last link touches on white supremacy in addition to other risks!

 

[Emily Lake]

You say that Elixir is advocating violence. But he isn't. He said nothing about violence. Whereas you did. You committed the very crime you are falsely accused Elixir of:

"If you actually, truly believe the things you say, you should be prepared to take direct action against Trump."

That is a plain and unequivocal call to violence. Nothing Elixir wrote even suggests that he thinks retaliatory violence would be the best response to the threat Trump obviously poses. Whereas you claim that it would be some sort of moral imperative if Elixir believes his statements are true, which he presumably does given that they are his statements.

Thank you for the clarification.

Let me try to be more clear on this. Elixir isn't *directly* calling for violence. But the implication and ramification of the narrative he espouses is one that *justifies* violence, regardless of whether he directly calls for it or not.

It's a dog whistle.

Look, you're perfectly able to call out the arguments about the declining birth rate in America, and the risk of violence that it implies - right? You've seen it before, haven't you? Do you acknowledge that the people who are talking about how important an issue it is never actually specifically call for any sort of violence or persecution? That it's not explicitly, but that it's the foreseeable ramification and the subtext of their argument?

Would you defend their arguments in the same way that you're defending this argument? Somehow, I don't think you would - somehow I'm pretty sure you would be quite capable of pointing out that such an argument subtly and indirectly lays the foundation for aggression, violence, and persecution.

 

[Emily Lake]

No, you don't see articles about it. It's less prevalent, but it's not absent. An unbiased person might ask why you don't hear about it in the media.

Who said it was absent??? Straw man much?

Why do you do this?

The implication in your post was perfectly clear. You knew it when you wrote it. It's obvious that your intention was to paint extremist violence as being something that is associated with the right wing, and to downplay any left wing activity as being no big deal or somehow understandable and excusable. You're not subtle, Zip.

If you're going to take a position, take it. Stand by it and say what you mean to say. Don't do this hint-hint-nudge-nudge-wink-knowhatimean bullshit and then try to pretend like you didn't mean anything at all by it.

 

[Emily Lake]

So you make up an outlandish (both sides) hypothesis and when people aren't supporting, you just keep assuming your baseless assumptions are accurate.

Sure, sure... progressives and leftists NEVER engage in unwarranted violence.

Far-right violence a growing threat and law enforcement's top domestic terrorism concern

The Proud Boys played a critical part in carrying out the Jan. 6 attack, but the group is just one part of a trend of increased white supremacist and far-right violence. Top U.S. law enforcement officials say those extremist movements are the biggest domestic terrorism threat facing the country...

www.pbs.org

Strange how we don't see similar articles about the left.

It gets framed differently. When it's antifa setting buildings on fire with people in them, it's a "mostly peaceful" protest where it's "understandable that emotions run high" and "it's just a few outliers" among the sea of black-clad balaclava-wearing hooligans.

No, you don't see articles about it. It's less prevalent, but it's not absent. An unbiased person might ask why you don't hear about it in the media.

Anarchist Violent Extremism in America | Program on Extremism | The George Washington University

Anarchist Violent Extremism in America

extremism.gwu.edu

Subcommittee Chair Bishop: “It’s Past Time We Recognize Left-Wing Violence for What it is” – Committee on Homeland Security

homeland.house.gov

The Escalating Terrorism Problem in the United States

The United States faces a growing terrorism problem that will likely worsen in the next year, particularly around the 2020 presidential election. The most significant threat likely comes from white supremacists, though anarchists and religious extremists could also pose a threat.

www.csis.org

There's already been right wing violence associated to the election. Several ballot drop boxes have been set on fire in heavily blue districts.

Which is atrocious and shouldn't be tolerated. What's your point, and why do you think it's somehow a counter to my argument?

 

[Elixir]

the implication and ramification of the narrative he espouses is one that *justifies* violence, regardless of whether he directly calls for it or not.

WTF? What fucking “narrative” of mine implies that?
I don’t do smarmy narratives. I say what I think, e.g. “someone should shoot him”.


Calling my actual political stance a “dogwhistle” is like saying “Emily’s narrative on abortion implies an invitation to kill women” because we all know the futility of handwringing about Roe, and it just invites the murderous right to thumb their noses and continue their genocide”

And no, I did not represent that.

 

[Emily Lake]

All of these things you're saying are justifications for expected future violence.

No. They are motivations for turning out to vote in numbers sufficient not only to create an electoral landslide, but also to discourage people from participating in the ensuing coup attempt. That is the only path to a peaceful transfer of power in January. And by peaceful, I mean body counts of no more than three digits.

That might be how you intend it, but I really really don't think that's going to be the consequence.

"Vote for Harris or else Trump is going to be a dictator and destroy democracy, and turn the miltary against US Citizens and it's going to be Hitler all over again. Trump is an existential threat to democracy, if he wins he's going to persecute liberals and round up immigrants and deport them or put them in camps!"

And you think that the only repercussion of that message is to get people to go to the voting booth? You don't think there's any chance at all that anyone is going to take that seriously? You don't think anyone is going to take it further than that if Trump wins?

Even in your own post, you're messaging that the ONLY POSSIBLE WAY we can have a peaceful transfer of power is if Harris wins by a landslide. You've already internalized and repeated that Harris has to win or else...

Well, yes. I believe the difference between the two choices is really that stark: Harris wins and we still have democracy or Trump wins and democracy in the US is essentially over.

Cool that you don't think that Trump means all the shit he says but I think he's shown that he really does mean it. Maybe there will be enough adults in the room to keep him from doing his worst, which, btw, is really really really bad. But maybe not. That's not a chance that I think is worth risking.

Harris is not my very most ideal candidate but that's ok. I'm used to that. I'm still pretty upset by how Biden has been treated and if the GOP were not so reprehensible to the very core, I'd be much more inclined to consider voting third party. But I've been down that path before and have come to regret every single one of those third party votes.

I really cannot tell exactly what your problem with Harris is. Or why you seem to be saying that Trump is a better alternative. I just don't get it.

Let's back this all the way up. First, I'll address the last three paragraphs of your post by pointing out that I do NOT think Trump is a better alternative. That has not been my position nor my argument in this thread at all. If that's all you've gotten out of this, then I think you should at least attempt to reread from a different perspective. Because at no point in this have I come anywhere near suggesting that people shouldn't vote for Harris, nor that they should vote for Trump. Please, please vote for whoever you think is the better option in terms of policy and positions. That what everyone should be doing. You don't get it... because that's not what's being said.

Now, I'm going to circle back to your very first paragraph, because this actually IS my point.

"Vote for Harris or else Trump is going to be a dictator and destroy democracy, and turn the miltary against US Citizens and it's going to be Hitler all over again. Trump is an existential threat to democracy, if he wins he's going to persecute liberals and round up immigrants and deport them or put them in camps!"
...
You've already internalized and repeated that Harris has to win or else...

Well, yes. I believe the difference between the two choices is really that stark: Harris wins and we still have democracy or Trump wins and democracy in the US is essentially over.

Let's step back a moment, and try a bit of an experiment. I'm going to ask you to do something difficult, and set aside your own personal preferences, your political alignment, your opinions on who tells the truth and who doesn't. I'm going ask you to contemplate the impact of the rhetoric, and what consequences are likely to arise from it. Because that's my issue - the rhetoric and what it drives toward.

Consider "Vote for Trump or else Harris is going to destroy the economy, and the democrats are going to destroy the first amendment, take away our right to free speech, they're going to persecute people on the basis of their sincerely held beliefs by making it illegal to express those beliefs, they're going to jail people for making comments on social media, they're going to censor views that disagree with Democrat policies, they're going to indoctrinate those beliefs into our children, they're going to turn the US into a communist shithole and destroy our entire way of life."...

Do you honestly internalize that as nothing more than a call for people to vote? Or do you see that as laying the groundwork for a violent response if Harris wins?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Both parties, both candidates are doing this. They target different items of fear, they use different tactics, but they're employing the same strategy. Trump is 100% using the same approach, with a different focus. They each have chosen topics that they believe will resonate with and instill fear into their supporters... and both of those messages carry an inherent risk of escalation if the other wins. Both Trump and Harris are complicit in priming the US for violence.

 

[Elixir]

Ya sure ya betcha. Both sides.

I’m not going to waste my time explaining the difference for your benefit. It’s been done, to no effect.

 

[Emily Lake]

In 2016 the state legislatures appointed enough EC delegates for Trump to take the White House.

@Emily Lake I think this is suggesting that Trump didn’t truly win the election on his own; rather, it was handed to him. While he did win in the traditional definition by becoming president, it was state legislatures that effectively gave it to him. I think that's what TomC was getting at.

Do you think Tom believes that any state electors turned in votes for Trump in opposition to the populace of their state? Is there any state in which the popular vote came down in favor of Clinton but the EC votes were handed to Trump?

 

[Gospel]

In 2016 the state legislatures appointed enough EC delegates for Trump to take the White House.

@Emily Lake I think this is suggesting that Trump didn’t truly win the election on his own; rather, it was handed to him. While he did win in the traditional definition by becoming president, it was state legislatures that effectively gave it to him. I think that's what TomC was getting at.

Do you think Tom believes that any state electors turned in votes for Trump in opposition to the populace of their state? Is there any state in which the popular vote came down in favor of Clinton but the EC votes were handed to Trump?

Take a look at what TomC said in the quote and compare it to my response. All I did was share my interpretation of what I believe TomC was getting at based on what he expressed. I can't say for sure what TomC actually thinks—you could always ask him directly. I was just interpreting, similar to how you do for Trump, and it seems to work pretty well.

 

[Elixir]

Let’s just NOT mention the many ways that Uncle Vlad helped push Cheato over the line in 2016.
It triggers the “independents”.

 

[Emily Lake]

“They weren't banging the drum about fascist dictator for life, imprison political enemies, hunt down us citizens, repeat of hitler, existential threat.”

I was. Who is “they”?
I’ve been mouthing those truths since the orange shitbag first announced back in ‘15.
Actually since the 1980’s not much has changed about him other than dementia.
Remember The Central Park Five? Remember the full page ad he took out?
He probably didn’t mean it though - they were never executed so no harm done, right?

Sometimes your unwillingess to read is mind-boggling. Seriously. It's RIGHT FUCKING THERE.

You think the left wing was happy with W winning re-election '04 or Trump in '16?

No, they weren't happy. But they also weren't preaching the same message in the lead-up. They weren't banging the drum about fascist dictator for life, imprison political enemies, hunt down us citizens, repeat of hitler, existential threat.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Oh FFS. I haven't suggested or even remotely implied that right wing violence is not a problem. It's a larger problem currently than left wing violence is. But at least I fucking acknowledge that left wing violence isn't just some made up fantasy, that it's a real thing that does actually fucking happen! My last link touches on white supremacy in addition to other risks!

I'm happy that you "fucking acknowledged" something that isn't particularly in "fucking" question.

 

[Elixir]

It's RIGHT FUCKING THERE.

WHAT is "right fucking there", besides THE FUCKING TRUTH, Emily?

I think you just heard of Trump in 2015. Some of us have been aware of his menace for decades longer.
There is no DOG WHISTLE there. Just some truths you find unpleasant.

They weren't banging the drum about fascist dictator for life, imprison political enemies, hunt down us citizens, repeat of hitler, existential threat.

Good for "them". I was sounding the alarm all along. You don't like the sound? Tough shit. It's the truth.
Yes, Trump says "I know you are but what am I?" to every accurate description of his character, actions and intent. So what?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

“They weren't banging the drum about fascist dictator for life, imprison political enemies, hunt down us citizens, repeat of hitler, existential threat.”

I was. Who is “they”?
I’ve been mouthing those truths since the orange shitbag first announced back in ‘15.
Actually since the 1980’s not much has changed about him other than dementia.
Remember The Central Park Five? Remember the full page ad he took out?
He probably didn’t mean it though - they were never executed so no harm done, right?

Sometimes your unwillingess to read is mind-boggling. Seriously. It's RIGHT FUCKING THERE.

The "irony" is that you didn't read what Elixir said..

 

[Emily Lake]

You know what's telling about the whole 'Trump doesn’t literally mean what he says; he means something else' argument? They don’t apply that same logic to liberals.

Okay, fine. Harris literally means that college students are all dumb, and Clinton literally means that half of the people who vote Republican are deplorable humans who are irredeemable. And Obama literally thinks there are 57 states. Happy now?

It's dumb to apply that logic at all, regardless of which party you're targeting.