I feel you on that. Don't think there's any stopping what's already set in motion at this point.

Unfortunately some liberals have also redefined non-violent activities as violent. Violence is physically harming a person. Threats are not violent. Racial slurs are not violent. And from conservatives vandalism isn’t violent. Arson isn’t violent. Burning the flag isn’t violent.

The right is creating a literal police state. The left created a difficult cultural policing scenario by doing things like getting someone fired because they used a racial slur while someone was filming. I’m not equating it but wars often start tit for tat.

The feds are going to keep invading American cities and we will grow more and more numb and accepting of it. The only way to stop it would be to fire back with real bullets time after time. Cops feds soldiers whoever they’re actually NOT willing to die for this ****. Cops won’t even make a drug arrest if they’re out gunned.

The best move for the left is to try to position the local police against the feds and hope they start shooting each other. It’s happened in many other countries.

I don't disagree. Something like how intimidation via threats or racism being a strong enough promise of violence to being considered with the same weight as violence being abridged to the kitschier but also uselessly reductionist racism=violence gets a lot more movement and coverage these days. Then the idea and the whole philosophy affiliated with it is defined by that reductionism in the public eye by both its supporters and detractors.

Maybe more importantly, the disenfranchisement that this culture brings is exploited to achieve authoritarian ideals. This is one reason why I think that cancel culture critics often overblow the issue.

NFAC militia leader says Saturday's planned march is about 'justice for Breonna Taylor'

Not a tear gas canister, pepper spray can, or flashbomb in sight.

Washington Post settles $250M lawsuit with teen in a MAGA hat

Maybe better to settle this to avoid setting a legal precedent? Despite corrections, the suit holds the publication accountable for the impact of the social media response to their initial reporting.

I don’t think the settlement amount has been released. I haven’t even read if there’s a NDA.

I still think it’s funny how those black Israelite dudes trolled the **** out of everybody

Yea... After a while that could just lead to them making sure to come heavily armed enough to not be outgunned. Which shouldn't be too hard for the new secret military police.

In fact it will be the perfect pretext for going even more authoritarian. If you watch Fox news for 5 minutes it's clear as day they're salivating over any sign of unrest even more than you are.

Maybe some kind of legal precedent isn't a bad thing in this case. If the WaPo decided tomorrow to publish an article about you based on falsehoods and/or bull**** information....even if they retract it later, the damage is already done. Especially since every publication out there takes every story they publish and pushes it out through social media on their own as fast as they can.

Das rite!

But then I could get a multimillion dollar settlement or 6 so it evens out.

Actually that gives me an idea. Does anybody have some shoe polish that I can borrow?

I hear you. I’m not down with any ideology that thinks racial justice is compatible with capitalism or that this power structure can be reformed anyway. But my manic obsession with triggering the apocalypse is fading. I think that’s because it’s a mental instability cycle. I don’t know if there’s a name for it but it’s like a kind of ocd triggered by depression and the ocd manifests in repetitive crazy ass thoughts.

I bet those guys could do that for years but if I were in a certain mood they’d be thinking I was some kind of **** they’ve never seen before.

A school having a business class is more dangerous than klan rallies.

I disagree cause they're probably learning something at the rally.

Good point. The Klan doesn’t weaponize tuition and debt, however.

I don't think that's even necessarily true. They have hate speech laws in Europe which are tantamount to govt censorship and are supported by many leftists.

The real question is if you actually believe speech is violence then why don't you support state censorship. The state prohibits forms of violence all the time.

He’s opposed to the state existing in any capacity

Ain’t that right elph

You can use that same argument to advocate legalizing any other form of violence. Basically there's not a single law you can justify, using that framework.

Most anarchists I've come across seem to understand that advocating for certain laws while the state still exists is not at odds with the belief that eventually they would like to see the state disappear.

Or Google's job.

Can you explain to me what harm is being done by hate speech laws on the books in other countries right now? I don't see how they aren't addressing the same problem you are talking about. The idea that corporations can responsibly thought police but the govt doing it is a slippery slope seems like a rather peculiar pov to me.

I'm not being hyperbolic. I didn't say they were coming to jail you. I'm asking how those hate speech laws are doing more harm than good. First you said you just don't trust the government to determine hate speech (and so I pointed out that for some reason you do trust corporations to do so) and now you're apparently saying instead that the consequences are too steep. The consequences for other forms of violence are also that you go to jail. Do you disagree with that as well?

so are hate speech laws.

How many free speech advocates have you discussed this sort of thing with?

I've known many and haven't met a single one that would support gunning down protestors, even if those protestors happened to differ politically with the free speech advocate.

To that end, free speech does not find its advocates solely on one side of the political spectrum. The whole point of free speech is that without it, violence is the only solution.

I don't support killing protesters.

I just don't understand why certain speech shouldn't be a crime if it's violence that is leading to actual deaths. You have a strange commitment to our particular Constitution for a communist revolutionary.

You called free speech advocates "bad faith actors", because you posited that they won't comment on, or would silently agree with protestors getting shot and killed. If you find or know someone like that, they are, by definition, not an advocate for free speech, despite what they might say.

I don't know where you're getting the idea that free speech advocates have some ominous intersection with people who support cops in instances where black men are killed, this seems like a misdirection to me, and a highly specific one at that. What's your point here?

And again, youre implying free speech advocates don't mind when protestors are murdered - you're free to have arguments with people you've imagined that you understand, but it doesn't do much to illuminate or reinforce your point of view to others.

@ elph

It's just strange since you seem like you're appealing to consequentialist logic for silencing Nazis online yet I feel these same arguments could be and in fact are made to defend hate speech laws as well.

I'm not even saying it's a bad thing. It really depends on your priorities. I can see the utility in both TOS and hate speech laws. And I see no inclination that in Europe they're descending down the slippery slope to authoritarianism through these sorts of laws so aside from the first amendment I guess I don't understand why it would be any different here.

I wonder if elphenor thought of that when he was making this exact point about self-proclaimed free speech advocates.

Fair enough. It's worth pointing out that these bad faith actors are not proper characterizations of what advocacy for free speech is. And I think (correct me if you think I'm wrong) that these bad-faith actors are a minority in what would constitute as people who advocate for free speech.

I'll have to take your word on the Gamergate stuff, I'm not familiar with that.

Cheeky. To elph's credit, this is probably what he meant. But he didn't call them "self-proclaimed free speech advocates" - he didn't make that delineation at all. As a result, it sounded like conflation.

whats been going on in washington state and oregon what are the crying about now ..???

I mean didn't he pretty much make his name off of that? I don't think he's struggling.

Plus you have the Klan and Neo Nazis able to demonstrate in public with police protection... I think it's fairly easy to make a consequentialist case that this also is ultimately harmful.

Yes it's more potent to use online platforms but that just reinforces the idea that censoring people through corporate TOS is more powerful and more effective than doing so through hate speech laws, not that hate speech laws are necessarily beyond the pale.

Also, since hate crimes already exist as a category in the United States it seems the skepticism over whether the government is competent at identifying hateful ideolgies could apply to that as well.

The nation would go ape**** if this really happened. I know I would.

According to the video, Congress would have to agree to it, which seems very hard to imagine. If there is any rationale to this beyond Trump's deranged lack of any connection to reality, it's likely just setting up the narrative of a fraudulent election in case he loses.

I’m surprised anyone didn’t see this coming.

Once he does it every congressional election and gubernatorial election will also be contested and the smooth transition of government will be a thing from our past. It’s just another step in a very steady move toward third world disarray. We already have a below third world education, third world health care, third world nutrition, and superstitious conspiracy minded tribal third world culture. Of course our politics are going the same way.

How long can a country this armed and this poorly governed avoid a nuclear crisis? Another plague? Black truck genocides? Civil war? Water disputes? Devastated farm land? War with Mexico? Taken offline by China and Russia? The dollar finally bottoming out?

That he uses to stay in office, “Just until we figure this thing out”

I don’t see how anybody could still think we’re going to have a peaceful transition of government.

People have been speculating about this sorta thing for years tbh. Before the last election people thought he might not willingly accept a loss and since then it's been endlessly debated whether he will leave the office willingly, whether he would go for a 3rd term, how he would try to rig the election, etc.

I don't doubt for a second there's a decent chance he'd try to contest a loss, I just don't think that will work. Seems more likely he could do something to rig/unfairly influence it and get away with that instead. Especially since they've already impeached him once for it and that didn't stick.

Yeah unless it's a Bush/Gore situation I imagine Trump losing will see the rest of the Republicans casually back away and leave him rambling alone like a madman.

What's a black truck genocide and can I name my band that?

http://constructionlitmag.com/wp-con...05/Mao-II1.jpg

Murica Maoism First Action

*Public executions of black truck owners.

https://c4.wallpaperflare.com/wallpa...aper-thumb.jpg

This is how I suspect the election will go down: the Republicans will use all the voter suppression tricks they have already successfully used in Georgia and elsewhere:
- gerrymandering
- closure of polling stations
- relocating polling stations to places void of public transport
- "typo errors" in polling announcements to give wrong hours/locations etc.
- retweeting Russian media disinformation
- pedantic/intimidating voter registration

They'll also try out some new ones for mail-in ballots:
- reduced funding and service of the postal system
- arbitrary cut-off deadlines for postal votes
- accusastions of fraudulent postal ballots

With all those in place, they'll be in a position to either win some states or to get close enough to demand recounts, etc. The GOP won't flat out deny the election result if they lose, but they'll be piecemeal tipping the playing field in their favour with moves that are, each of them alone, plausably excuseable, for eg. "We had to move the polling station out of town for economic reasons."

And here's how the GOP could plausably scupper mail-in balloting with each move being, of itself, excusable: (i) reduce postal service, (ii) send out a mailshot with a "mistake" giving a ballot dealine of, say, November 10 (iii) on November 5, send out a correction with the real ballot deadline of November 6.


What worries me about the coverage of current poll numbers is that they are making the Dems complacent again. I think the media should analyse all poll results like this:
Poll: Biden leads at 60%
Adjusted for gerrymandering: 55%
Adjusted for inaccessible polling stations: 50%
Adjusted for mail-in ballot deadlines: 45%

I think it was one of the Lincoln Project guys who said that the Dems turn up to a knife fight with a soup ladle. Didn't we see that in the Barr hearing the other day? Some angry words, but no action. Why didn't they press Barr to recuse himself from any case in which there could be an appearance of impropriety? That could've stopped Trump "activating" Barr at will.

Uh hmmm I mean owners of black trucks