The News Thread

[Allfader]

Hamburger's logic is simple, if he had the balls to admit it, so I'll resume it:

- He doesn't care about human rights, if the victims are leftists, especially non-whites.

- He doesn't care about labour rights, as long as he and his redneck fellas don't suffer from it. Let the immigrants and non whites to be slaves, that's what they are for anyway!

- As long as he still earns money and can do whatever he wants, he doesn't care either about the economic effects of a terrible leadership nor the impact on the less "fortunate" population. His taxes should be spent in "real" Americans!!

- Since he is "white", he is not a victim of ruthless police violence, discrimination at work, lesser wages, lesser opportunities at progress, poverty-ridden origins and all that stuff that non whites have endured since the whites invaded America and exterminated the native population, SO... To hell with what the non whites have to live with, He's not a victim.

- He DOES care when, as time and society as a whole progresses, the government and congress have to upgrade their laws to equal and uphold everybody's Rights. When whites were the only ones with privileges and Rights, everything was good. Now that everybody is entitled to their Rights, then it's not that good, because, since whites have a history and love to trumple over the non whites and the whites that defend the "inferior ones", now it's harder to be a bully/racist/hateful piece of shit.

It's the same rhetorical shit neonazis Say every time they say "My freedom of speech is being vulnerated". I'll translate that for ya:

"I have the right to hate, to insult, to harm and kill whatever scum I deem unworthy of this country".

There you go.

 

[CiG]

Of all the things you could call HamburgerBoy's logic, I don't think "simple" is among them.

 

[Einherjar86]

Of all the things you could call HBB's comments, I don't think "logical" is among them.

 

[CiG]

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Modern liberal democracy has everything to do with hate speech laws. You can't just ignore the historical relevance of these institutions. Hate speech laws arose from liberal ideas about private identity and personhood, i.e. you can't slander someone because of who they are. The function might resemble punishments for blasphemy, but the historical conditions of hate speech emerge from an entirely different set of social mores and expectations. It has nothing to do with pledging obedience to a god or state, and everything to do with the emergence of the modern liberal self.

Read the history of hate crime law. It doesn't emerge from a state looking for ways to limit what people can say. It emerges from individual actors--activists, lawyers, and scholars--making legal claims about personhood and private identity. This is hardly leftist.

They arose from Jews pushing their ethnoreligious supremacy onto the Western nations from which they extract their wealth. All hate speech laws in American history have a clear origin in the Jewish leftist Democrats of the FDR era. Leftist 20th century Chicago and NYC regularly pass hate speech laws only to have them rightly shut down by the great right-wing invention of the First Amendment. Laws only emerge from states so your second paragraph is complete nonsense.

This is logically inconsistent. A person being fired, someone being dropped from an insurance plan or by a publisher, etc. etc... none of these are "state mandated." These are private individuals/businesses making decisions. They are, in fact, free to make these decisions. The people being "silenced" are free to say whatever they like--and those affiliated with them are free to respond as they see fit.

Nothing about that is leftist. It's actually the opposite of leftist, if by leftist we're meaning authoritarian e.g. China, Soviet Union, etc.

Operation Choke Point was an attempt to prevent fraud because of rampant capitalist and liberal market practices. So in order for the historical claim you're making to be valid, you'd have to admit that the U.S. was a neoliberal, pro-market nation at least until the Obama administration.

Again you ignore that the banks only exist because of incomprehensible wealth transfer towards them. Operation Chokepoint explicitly pushed banks to shut down legal industries that the government didn't like yet couldn't practically ban, including things like weapons dealers. Even the ostensible good intent of the law, shutting down payday loan sharks preying on low-income blacks, wasn't about legal fraud, merely ethics. I don't see where I claimed Operation Chokepoint was the first ever intrusion on American capitalism.

This is even less accurate.

I don't think you know your history. You should read Alan Trachtenberg's The Incorporation of America

Other common enterprises that incorporated were wheat and cattle farming, meat-packing facilities, and other aspects of food production. The reason this was possible was that there was minimal regulation on these businesses or on the land they used.

As a percentage of all business it was not dominant. Family farms and shops were the dominant industry through the 19th century.

All of this is a result of expanding modes of capitalist production and market freedom. It wasn't at the behest of the state or bolstered by it. The act of incorporation isn't a left-wing practice but a sign of deepening industrial capitalism and the growing power of a vastly productive marketplace.

The point, as you try to put it, is that liberal democratic institutions have given rise to a modern situation in which individuals can choose to censure and punish others. Do politicians play along with this? Sure, I'm not denying that; but most often they aren't the ones bringing the cases (although they do on others' behalf sometimes) or initiating the behavior.

You may not like the fact that people act out by boycotting, deplatforming, publicly silencing, etc.; but no one is being told they can't say anything. You can, but then you're also responsible for the public backlash that comes your way.

Everything we're discussing is all about individual control--you have control over what you say, and others have control over how they react to what you say.

Corporations are not individuals. They are government-created collective bodies which control private assets yet enjoy influx of public dollars and the protection enabled by public courts. The largest corporations are filled with examples of the public-private revolving door. Even the innocuous sole-owner LLC exists primarily to protect its owner from civil (government) actions, i.e. at their best they are government-issued shields against government-issued violence.

Hamburger's logic is simple, if he had the balls to admit it, so I'll resume it:

- He doesn't care about human rights, if the victims are leftists, especially non-whites.

- He doesn't care about labour rights, as long as he and his redneck fellas don't suffer from it. Let the immigrants and non whites to be slaves, that's what they are for anyway!

- As long as he still earns money and can do whatever he wants, he doesn't care either about the economic effects of a terrible leadership nor the impact on the less "fortunate" population. His taxes should be spent in "real" Americans!!

- Since he is "white", he is not a victim of ruthless police violence, discrimination at work, lesser wages, lesser opportunities at progress, poverty-ridden origins and all that stuff that non whites have endured since the whites invaded America and exterminated the native population, SO... To hell with what the non whites have to live with, He's not a victim.

- He DOES care when, as time and society as a whole progresses, the government and congress have to upgrade their laws to equal and uphold everybody's Rights. When whites were the only ones with privileges and Rights, everything was good. Now that everybody is entitled to their Rights, then it's not that good, because, since whites have a history and love to trumple over the non whites and the whites that defend the "inferior ones", now it's harder to be a bully/racist/hateful piece of shit.

It's the same rhetorical shit neonazis Say every time they say "My freedom of speech is being vulnerated". I'll translate that for ya:

"I have the right to hate, to insult, to harm and kill whatever scum I deem unworthy of this country".

There you go.

Bruh I'm literally a pro-open borders neoliberal when it comes to international matters and trade, and I don't give a fuck about rednecks except to the extent that they are pro-gun and therefore a bulwark against immigration-enabled attacks on the Bill of Rights. I'd have voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016 if she had a good record on First/Second Amendment issues (and voted for Gary Johnson instead because I thought (and still think) Trump's trade war with China was retarded).

 

[Einherjar86]

They arose from Jews pushing their ethnoreligious supremacy onto the Western nations from which they extract their wealth. All hate speech laws in American history have a clear origin in the Jewish leftist Democrats of the FDR era. Leftist 20th century Chicago and NYC regularly pass hate speech laws only to have them rightly shut down by the great right-wing invention of the First Amendment. Laws only emerge from states so your second paragraph is complete nonsense.



Again you ignore that the banks only exist because of incomprehensible wealth transfer towards them. Operation Chokepoint explicitly pushed banks to shut down legal industries that the government didn't like yet couldn't practically ban, including things like weapons dealers. Even the ostensible good intent of the law, shutting down payday loan sharks preying on low-income blacks, wasn't about legal fraud, merely ethics. I don't see where I claimed Operation Chokepoint was the first ever intrusion on American capitalism.



As a percentage of all business it was not dominant. Family farms and shops were the dominant industry through the 19th century.



Corporations are not individuals. They are government-created collective bodies which control private assets yet enjoy influx of public dollars and the protection enabled by public courts. The largest corporations are filled with examples of the public-private revolving door. Even the innocuous sole-owner LLC exists primarily to protect its owner from civil (government) actions, i.e. at their best they are government-issued shields against government-issued violence.



Bruh I'm literally a pro-open borders neoliberal when it comes to international matters and trade, and I don't give a fuck about rednecks except to the extent that they are pro-gun and therefore a bulwark against immigration-enabled attacks on the Bill of Rights. I'd have voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016 if she had a good record on First/Second Amendment issues (and voted for Gary Johnson instead because I thought (and still think) Trump's trade war with China was retarded).

 

[Allfader]

They arose from Jews pushing their ethnoreligious supremacy onto the Western nations from which they extract their wealth. All hate speech laws in American history have a clear origin in the Jewish leftist Democrats of the FDR era. Leftist 20th century Chicago and NYC regularly pass hate speech laws only to have them rightly shut down by the great right-wing invention of the First Amendment. Laws only emerge from states so your second paragraph is complete nonsense.

Man, this sounds horrible. Really. Not only for the "zog" speech underlying there, but also because most of the protection/human rights laws were made due massive riots and terrible police/army executed massacres. The international Woman's Day is a commemoration of a brutal massacre, for example.

Again you ignore that the banks only exist because of incomprehensible wealth transfer towards them.
As a percentage of all business it was not dominant. Family farms and shops were the dominant industry through the 19th century.

"Industry" had very little history itself in 1800's, just saying. As any starting point, it started sorta small with family businesses, then capitalism made its work and factories and industries got bigger due higher demand and cost efficiency. That was a natural state of things there.

Corporations are not individuals. They are government-created collective bodies which control private assets yet enjoy influx of public dollars and the protection enabled by public courts. The largest corporations are filled with examples of the public-private revolving door. Even the innocuous sole-owner LLC exists primarily to protect its owner from civil (government) actions, i.e. at their best they are government-issued shields against government-issued violence.

Wrong. Corporations, as any business, are just legal private entities that transform resources (money, human labor, materials, etc) into goods and services. In US, the government has basically ZERO ownership of large private corporations. What happens is that some private corporate executives are promptly placed as political candidates by the very same corporations that fund political parties.

China in an example of government-owned investments in partnership with privates, due the government's laws that demand the selling of a portion of the business to said government to control the influence of private capitals into state affairs.

Bruh I'm literally a pro-open borders neoliberal when it comes to international matters and trade, and I don't give a fuck about rednecks except to the extent that they are pro-gun and therefore a bulwark against immigration-enabled attacks on the Bill of Rights. I'd have voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016 if she had a good record on First/Second Amendment issues (and voted for Gary Johnson instead because I thought (and still think) Trump's trade war with China was retarded).

You sound like a mess.

 

[CiG]

Okay now shit's getting interesting.

http://www.facebook.com/UnbiasedAmerica/posts/1532237450295578

 

[rms]

Happens all the time for both sides. It's not really interesting and going to be used for right wing deflection

 

[CiG]

Hard disagree, it's interesting in that the guy was interviewed by CNN and now website fact-checkers flag anything claiming he was part of the riot as false information.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...st-egged-mob-siege-Capitol-released-bail.html

 

[Einherjar86]

I feel like these are the kinds of inconsequential facts that apologists for what happened are going to eat up and promote. They'll spread like wildfire and fuel the misinformed belief that this was anything other than a Trump mob and riot.

This person was definitely there and seemed to be participating in what happened. If we want the bare facts (as much as any fact can be "bare"), then that's it. He was there and participated.

The next question has to be "Where does this get us?" Those trying to say it wasn't Trump supporters will say this is proof that other political actors were there. Sure, but one political actor doesn't an infiltration make. Maybe some more levelheaded people will say, "But it shows it wasn't only Trump people." Okay, fine--again, so what? The FBI managed to find one "leftist" among a sea of Trump rioters. I don't see the significance of that.

Now, the third option, as I see it, is what CIG is specifying: i.e. that media venues are denying his involvement when video evidence says otherwise. This is a more material and complicated accusation, and it speaks to the notion of responsibility in handling information.

As far as I'm concerned, CNN and other major venues don't generate valuable information analysis. They're useful for following "breaking news" and updates (although "breaking" is usually a misnomer), but next to useless for analysis. It doesn't surprise me if they're handling this poorly. From what I've seen, however, Politico hasn't denied his presence and involvement, but has challenged the idea that he played any significant role in inciting the violence. Even if we hear him on video egging people on, it's highly doubtful those actions contributed in any material way to what was already happening. In other words, remove Sullivan from the equation and you still wind up with the same overall result.

I'm not up to speed on what all media is saying, but it's certainly irresponsible to report that he wasn't there (obviously he was). It is responsible, however, to report that although he was present it's unlikely his presence means much of anything at all. Without this additional tidbit, it's virtually certain that those looking for conspiratorial explanations (e.g. it was antifa) are going to see Sullivan's presence as proof of conspiracy.

I guess I don't see it as "interesting," to use your word CIG, because I ultimately don't see an ulterior motive here. I see shoddy work being done by the networks that tend to produce shoddy work, but not from places like Politico. I don't think it's irresponsible or inaccurate for fact-checkers to report that his involvement doesn't amount to incitement. He was there, he shouted "let's go" or whatever; but none of this amounts to an alternative explanation for what happened.

 

[CiG]

The Capitol building riot was definitely a right-wing incident, I don't want anybody to think I'm buying into the boomer-right conspiracy theory that it was some kind of AntiFa operation to make the right look bad. I know enough about online right-wing politics to recognize a shitload of faces in that footage.

Why does there have to be an ulterior motive for it to be interesting? We have video of a leftist activist attempting to incite an already violent mob into further violence, he gets interviewed on a network where he claims he was there only for journalistic purposes, and now anybody who posts contradictory information on social media gets hit with fact-checks. If that's not a clear example of how fucked up social media platforms have become with regards to the control of information I don't know what is.

That's why it's interesting to me. The continued empowerment of social media platforms (the modern public square) to control information while also presenting themselves as trustworthy and authoritative with facts is interesting. If the average person trusts the fact-checking process they will likely scroll straight past anything tagged with a fact-check disclaimer.

The other thing I personally find interesting is that once again we're seeing AntiFa getting mixed up in a volatile situation and only attempting to make it worse, just like the George Floyd protests.

He was there, he shouted "let's go" or whatever; but none of this amounts to an alternative explanation for what happened.

"Let's go"? Yeah he shouted a lot more than that, haha.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

Okay now shit's getting interesting.

http://www.facebook.com/UnbiasedAmerica/posts/1532237450295578

Whole breakdown on this guy by Max Blumenthal and Katie Halper. TLDW, I think he’s a nihilist who tries to create chaos at both left and right protests.

 

[Einherjar86]

Yeah, I know he said more, it was for brevity's sake.

I admit that I don't know all the details of what social media is doing in response to this, but I don't think it's a huge deal if the fact-checks say something along the lines of "Sullivan wasn't instrumental in inciting or provoking the riot"--which, if I understand correctly, is what places like Politico are saying. They're not denying his presence, merely that his presence is all that important.

I firmly believe this is an instance in which facts, if left to their own devices, would do more harm than good. I'm all for media reporting on Sullivan's involvement, but only if they qualify it with the analysis that his presence doesn't change anything about the overall situation. My disinterest has more to do with that dynamic, I think.

To put it another way, the information itself doesn't change anything for me, and so corresponding phenomenon of media inaccuracy feels less interesting than it does rote, at this point. I don't mean to sound dismissive, but it just doesn't amount to anything in this particular situation. If highly compelling and substantiated evidence were to emerge that some left-wing cell had infiltrated and, in fact, been largely responsible for the riot, and the media was failing to report on that... then I'd be interested, as well as concerned.

EDIT: @CiG

Whole breakdown on this guy by Max Blumenthal and Katie Halper. TLDW, I think he’s a nihilist who tries to create chaos at both left and right protests.

This strikes me as way more likely. When you go far enough to either the left or right, you find people who want to burn down Congress.

 

[CiG]

Yeah, I know he said more, it was for brevity's sake.

Oh brevity was it? Fair enough.

Whole breakdown on this guy by Max Blumenthal and Katie Halper. TLDW, I think he’s a nihilist who tries to create chaos at both left and right protests.

Cheers I'm watching this now. Based on your TLDW explanation yeah this is what I've already assumed and basically outright said; AntiFa activists have a habit of going to protests to cause chaos, if you followed any amount of livestreams during the Floyd protests a shitload of black people were directly calling them out. Look at what happened with CHAZ, it's what these people do. It's online anarchism made reality.

Going around causing chaos at protests doesn't make you a fake leftist though, anymore more than Viking man at the Capitol riot is a fake right-winger because he has been seen at climate protests.

 

[CiG]

@Einherjar86 this video with Max Blumenthal blows up a lot of your narrative, not sure if you're watching it.

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm not. I'm also not sure what you mean by "my narrative"--about Sullivan not being a significant factor? How so? I can't imagine what his presence there did that was of any overall significance.

 

[CiG]

a) that cops just let the fashies in and b) that his presence was insignificant.

Blumenthal's take on the situation directly contradicts those two things so far. This guy was offering a knife to people and even talking to the cops asking them to just let the mob through etc. Watch it when you get the chance (especially since you liked the comment).

"John Sullivan is there, he's playing a pivotal role in instigating the mob and getting the police to move aside." - Blumenthal

 

[Einherjar86]

Oh. Well my initial shock about the police was from the clip of them moving a barrier, which you informed me wasn't entirely accurate. My general sense of the police was that they were simply unprepared, which was my original comment to you in this thread, if I recall.

As far as the role Sullivan played, I gotta disagree. I don't see how bringing a knife or negotiating with cops changes anything. Other rioters brought firearms, explosives, and zip ties. A knife is small potatoes. Remove him from the scenario, it's almost certain we'd have seen the same events play out.

If I unlike it can I not watch it?

 

[CiG]

He's pleading with the cops to move and let everybody through, and moments later they're smashing the door and that dipshit female veteran gets shot climbing through it. I'd say that's playing a significant role in getting police to move away from the door.

Sounding like some partisan cope from you tbh.