Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Shameful Display of Anarchy and Violence

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

 

If you want to suggest that somehow the press was more fair in the 60s, not sure what you're talking about. Who are you thinking of? The New York Times? They were not any less  biased than they are now. It has always been slightly left-leaning, pretty centrist overall. Still is. Back in the 60s you probably could have said that it had a bias for the North.

"Slightly" has gone by the board. That was then. Any news media usually tilts left, by the nature of the public issues it reports on. Speaking truth to power, for the little guy, and so on, undertaken highly professionally. This lately has been a concerted effort by the major players to comprehensively attack America at its core. You need to put all the bits together; like I said to you before I was picking up on this trend five or six years ago from CNN (mainly) because, you might say, I'm "sensitized" to the omissions and devious tactics media can pull to manipulate the public discourse. It looked ominous, but I didn't quite realize the scope of the attack. Now I'm seeing those efforts come to fruition, I can see where they were headed. It is not even covert, they are very bold about their motives and what they want and will tolerate no dissent.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 597
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

As America prepares to certify our next President, a large band of hooligans have taken upon themselves to storm the Capitol.  This in the name of Freedom?  Are these hooligans striving to look for th

14 January 2021 We will crush their violence enacted under their feast of self-delusion and contempt for our Constitutional rule of law. The republic will prevail. The citizens on both sides are

Also there's an argument to the effect that, well look, the representatives in Congress deserve this. While, strictly speaking, this is correct, it doesn't follow merely from that fact that this is th

Posted Images

9 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Up until a few decades ago, the mainstream media played fair.

It is impossible to overemphasize that this is what conservatives actually believe. The mythos is that it always used to be better just a short while ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, 2046 said:

It is impossible to overemphasize that this is what conservatives actually believe. The mythos is that it always used to be better just a short while ago.

In nearly 50 years of being involved in newspapers and magazines or being around journalism in PR, or simply watching and reading about the USA and its political trends moving one way and the other, I have never seen anything like this. The sheer blatancy of the MSM's need for mass mind control, for power over 'the moral good of the people' takes one's breath away.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Are you sure you are talking about the "mainstream" media, Don Athos? With the exception of Fox News, you point to podcasts and local radio stations and forums etc. which don't command the numbers/influence the msm has.

I had quoted you as saying that the left has a "de facto monopoly" on media and social media. That conservatives and libertarians are not represented. I point to podcasts and local radio stations and forums and magazines and newspapers and on and on to demonstrate how that is not the case, at all.

I don't know precisely how to parse "numbers/influence"; how influential are folks like Rush Limbaugh or Alex Jones? But I did point to the fact (so far as I know, and I invite correction) that Fox News is the highest-rated cable news network. So how exactly we define "mainstream" (which seems rather besides the point to me, except for your using the term), I don't know, but I think that conservatives are fairly well represented overall. Anyone who wishes it has plenty of access.

6 hours ago, whYNOT said:

I will be frank, Yaron Brook and other Objectivist intellectuals in podcasts and many articles I read, have displayed a constant Leftist bias for some time.

This seems absurd on its face, but all right. I'll ask you to please explain what "Leftist" means here, and how Brook and other Objectivist intellectuals display it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

In nearly 50 years of being involved in newspapers and magazines or being around journalism in PR, or simply watching and reading about the USA and its political trends moving one way and the other, I have never seen anything like this. The sheer blatancy of the MSM's need for mass mind control, for power over 'the moral good of the people' takes one's breath away.

The US banned criticism of government in 1789, calling it sedition, literally fining, imprisoning, and deporting critics.

In the election of 1800, a journalist loyal to Jefferson said that Adams was a hermaphrodite.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

In nearly 50 years of being involved in newspapers and magazines or being around journalism in PR, or simply watching and reading about the USA and its political trends moving one way and the other, I have never seen anything like this

Be specific. What are you comparing "like this" with? How do I know you just weren't paying very good attention before? I need examples. When was it more fair? The 1890s muckraking journalism was a thing, mostly biased to make any capitalistic thing look bad? Are you talking about the Spanish-American war, which is one of the most egregious example of media bias that supports state imperialism explicitly in American history? Are you talking about the 60s where even the NYT mischaracterized the nature of many civil rights activists except MLK? I gave you older examples even. If you are only picking up on this trend 5 or 6 years ago, then I'm afraid that you are centuries too late. 

By the way, I'm not suggesting that the media and the press are good. I think the press by nature is statist. Fox News and NYT, both of them are providing narratives for people to consume and accept violations of their rights. This even make sense, especially because the press corps at the White House was essentially established by Teddy Roosevelt in order to control media narrative. 

I'm requesting that this thread be split because this is a completely new topic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/6/2021 at 4:29 PM, whYNOT said:

Oh, horrid. Much worse than the riots (sorry - "peaceful protests") across the land for months in support of BLM and stoked by Antifa and quite acceptable to Dems!

Since I actually started a new thread about the application of this fallacy to current events I'd love for you to chime in on it.  Do you mean to imply that those riots make this one okay?  Or are you (understandably!) just so frustrated with what happened that you can't pass up the opportunity to mention it again?  Or is it something totally different?

What's the takeaway you'd like people to get from such comments?

On 1/6/2021 at 5:33 PM, necrovore said:

Trump never asked for anyone to do anything like this.

"Come on down to DC on the 6th.  It's gonna be WILD!"

He rounded up an angry mob via Twitter (which was only angry because of the arbitrary fantasies he's been repeating over and over to anyone who'll listen), directed them to "march peacefully" to a specific target and then buggered off, leaving the angry mob to figure out what to do once it got there.  I know he's paid some sort of lipservice to peace and civility (while taking the opportunity to repeat his NOT-EVEN-LIES one more time) but in the immortal words of our next president: c'mon, man!

On 1/6/2021 at 8:58 PM, MisterSwig said:

This is what our representatives deserve. Screw 'em, and screw Biden.

Are we at the point of an armed revolution then?  Because that's what you're saying.  If you truly do think that then you should already have some sort of plan for how we're gonna accomplish it (which I'd really like at least a hint at because I have no such plan, because I do not believe it's time to swap our arguments out for bullets).

On 1/6/2021 at 8:59 PM, necrovore said:

Second, if it were genuinely stupid, it would be unimportant and could be ignored (apart from arresting and prosecuting those responsible), but the media and the Left regard it as tremendously important, as if all Trump supporters would do such a thing, as if it is the most logical thing for a Trump supporter to do. Now, that is clearly not the case, but who would want it to be?

Basing such an important conclusion on what you've heard in the mainstream media (even if only in simple opposition to it) isn't necessarily the most rational thing one could do.  I think it's also possible that the leftists in the media just get a kick out of showing Trump and his supporters at their stupidest and worst moments and that Trump (who is, believe it or not, just another mortal man like us) allowed them to take what probably was the most shameful point of his entire life and plaster it all over the world in giant, neon lettering.

No false flags or conspiracies are required; only an acceptance of the existence of human stupidity (although one would have to attribute this event to a good deal of both malice AND stupidity).

 

---

 

Before getting any further into this argument I'd like to mention that, although I was never really an admirer of Trump, until this last election I had a mostly positive view of him.  I guess I could've been called a vague supporter of his until the past few months (particularly January Sixth).  So if you, who are reading this, happen to still be a Trump supporter, you don't have to go fishing around for the reasons why I'm not anymore (or why I'm being stern with you): it's because this kind of behavior is DANGEROUS.

January Sixth, for example, did not involve some dumb kids skateboarding where they weren't supposed to.  As ill-conceived and futile as it was, it was intended to disrupt and subvert a necessary governmental function; the kind of act that usually takes place in a war (which is how many of the rioters described their own actions - as a "revolution").

And for what??? Stories and suspicions that we have NO GOOD REASON for believing!  Anyone familiar with O'ism will recall that the lack of any good reason to think something means that we call it "arbitrary", disregard it and move swiftly on with our lives.

 

I'm no big fan of our current government, either.  It is corrupt and oppressive (in far more ways than Trump could ever articulate) and Joe Biden is not a good person.  But he is the person that most Americans voted for.

 

And THAT'S the hill you guys are ready to die on???  THAT'S the point where we stop arguing and start shooting; because Joe Biden is really that much worse than any of the other bipeds we've elected before???

 

If that's what you think then maybe YOU deserve this kind of "revolution" but I do not!

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

Since I actually started a new thread about the application of this fallacy to current events I'd love for you to chime in on it.  Do you mean to imply that those riots make this one okay?  Or are you (understandably!) just so frustrated with what happened that you can't pass up the opportunity to mention it again?  Or is it something totally different?

What's the takeaway you'd like people to get from such comments?

 

 

---

 

 

You could look it up, HD. I had not implied, I stated: " If you condemn one, you condemn both or stand to lose any moral credibility" - or something close.

For me but not for thee, the double standard, has consistently been the mainstay of argument by modern (dare I say) Leftists and left media. I think they have no logical validation or moral right to that.  

So there's Kamala Harris shamelessly encouraging BLM/Antifa to keep going, right through the elections, and warning the public to "beware" (of 'peaceful' protests, mind: what's to beware of in those?).

I call that intimidation of minds by force. Something akin to the Capitol invaders' actions.

 

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/7/2021 at 8:51 PM, whYNOT said:

One could surmise that Trump wanted to exhibit that great numbers of Americans were not going to be cowed into a socialist USA by his invitation to go there, but who is that cynical to think he wanted the small minority of bad ones to invade and disrupt?

I am.

In the presidential debates (way back before the last election) why didn't Trump agree to concede if he lost fair-and-square?  I'm neither asking about any of the Democrats who urged Biden not to concede (which he said in those same debates that he WOULD do) nor about Russiagate; I am asking why Trump flatly refused to commit to a peaceful transition of power.  Is he allergic?

One can in fact say that both sides of an argument are bad and immoral and (although I think of myself as significantly less cynical than most) I certainly do believe Trump wanted that angry mob to storm the capital.

 

Although, in the interest of fairness...

On 1/7/2021 at 9:12 PM, Eiuol said:

The other guy, the actor, he is a known QAnon guy. Https://heavy.com/news/jake-angeli-q-shaman/

I, like Q-anon, am also against being governed by Satanic pedophiles.  The Satanists are okay; they usually have the best music.  Just not pedophiles.

😜

 

On 1/7/2021 at 9:52 PM, Dupin said:

I listened to part of Trump’s speech, as much as I could stomach.

He threw loyal supporters under the bus.

It was all right to say that storming the Capitol was the wrong thing to do but then he should have said that he understood their feelings and motivation.  And he should have described, at length, the role of Antifa.

Not only did Trump concede, worse, his use of the past tense sounds like he has given up trying to get election fraud acknowledged in the courts.  

He has dropped all election challenges in Georgia according to this article.

 

What I'm hearing (and please do correct me if I'm wrong) is that you were disappointed that the President of the United States of America denounced rioting and attempting to overthrow the US government as bad things, without explaining why they would be justified if Joe Biden actually had stolen this election?

 

Not to put to fine a point on it but if that was what you wanted to express then it would be a bit like coming out in favor of governance by Satanic pedophiles.

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

I am.

In the presidential debates (way back before the last election) why didn't Trump agree to concede if he lost fair-and-square?  I'm neither asking about any of the Democrats who urged Biden not to concede (which he said in those same debates that he WOULD do) nor about Russiagate; I am asking why Trump flatly refused to commit to a peaceful transition of power.  Is he allergic?

 

The simplest, un-cynical explanation is normally best.

If someone believes xyz is the truth, and it is not, he is not *lying* when he makes such a statement, he is just wrong.

Fraudulent elections? Trump patently believed so, pursued all the legal possibilities, as was Constitutional and his right, and found that he was either wrong or he couldn't prove his claim. (More like the latter).

I do not for an instant think he foresaw that some among the mob of supporters would break into the Capitol. To achieve what, exactly? A show of mass dissent by his supporters who had the right assemble is the least cynical explanation.

Despite all the dire predictions by many cynics, e.g. Barack Obama, of having to drag him out of the White House with the Marines, Trump will hand over as I earlier said he would.

But if any believe that Trump's motives were foul from the start, that America means nothing to him or was lesser to his personal ambitions, an ego trip, then it is ¬too¬ easy to believe the rest.

Not me.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/7/2021 at 10:43 PM, DonAthos said:

It troubles me greatly -- as it should trouble everyone else here -- to witness the degree and depth of conspiracy theory-type thinking which has infected this site (and the country). Objectivism proclaims support for Reason and Reality and is supported by them. To sunder this primary relationship in either direction is to leave Objectivism entirely untethered, to turn it into a mockery. Trump has displayed a consistent and utter disdain for truth, and he has embraced and promulgated a litany of lies in support of his power-lust. Lying has flourished around him accordingly, and I do not fault individuals who have been deceived, per se. But it is time, and past time, and far past time to wake up to the reality of the situation. Rand once remarked (in my memory of it, at least; I am open to correction) that once it was perhaps respectable or understandable to have an honest interest in socialism, but that following the horrors of the 20th century, the evidence was too overwhelming. The evidence is in on Trump. He is a would-be dictator. And those who continue to support him should find the courage to admit who and what he is, and by extension, who and what they are, too.

Absolutely.  January Sixth was to Trump as the 20th century was to Socialism.  I genuinely didn't see his fascistic elements until the presidential debates (although if there were earlier clues I missed then I'd be grateful to hear about them) but I'm fairly confident that the time period when one could honestly be confused about him is rapidly coming to a close.  January Sixth was not ambiguous.  All the necessary data is out there; integration takes time and effort, but no honest inquirer who now has it could fail to integrate it for much longer.  Although the time scales involved, and the implications for some of the issues raised in Fact and Value, I'm not quite as certain of.

The epistemic effects he's leaving in his wake tie directly into tu quoque.

 

On 1/8/2021 at 1:39 AM, Dupin said:

"Trump is an authoritarian and a statist.”

Even if partly true Trump still looks great compared with Biden/Kamala.

Firstly that's one more example of tu quoque.  And I think I'm gonna start counting.

Secondly it's also like comparing Popeye's Chicken to fermented animal feces and declaring "see?  The former isn't all that bad!" when no sane human being would ever willingly ingest either one.  Just because Biden is arguably worse does not make Trump a good person (let alone Presidential material).

Thirdly, no matter what anyone now feels about it, the majority of Americans voted for the fermented animal feces.  By law that means that for the next 4 years that's what we're gonna get.  I'm not happy about it either, but it's no excuse to upend our entire legal system and flush everything our founding fathers gave us down the toilet.

 

America has survived many things much worse than Joe Biden and it will still be here in 2024.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

 Just because Biden is arguably worse does not make Trump a good person (let alone Presidential material).

 

 

America has survived many things much worse than Joe Biden and it will still be here in 2024.

Nor does it make Biden "a good person". And Harris after him, gets worse-er.

I'd counted on Objectivists getting past the cult of personality and aesthetic feelings and focusing on the essentials.

Trump and increasing American independence - or increasing socialism?

What's it to be? (okay, too late, I know).

This is Reason. This is a hierarchy of values.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

I do not for an instant think he foresaw that some among the mob of supporters would break into the Capitol. To achieve what, exactly? A show of mass dissent by his supporters is the least cynical explanation.

And what would that have achieved?  Mike Pence had no power to alter anything he was being given.  The electoral college was basically set in stone by that point.

It is possible, given the few things you and I have already discussed, that he just wanted one last P.R. stunt.  Maybe.  But it's also possible that he was hoping (wrongly and irrationally) that the angry mob he'd rounded up would somehow change something in open defiance of our whole legal system.

 

You'd be right to point out that he never openly called for any violence, although I certainly didn't find any of his calls for peace satisfactory - asking people to calm down, while simultaneously reminding them of all the reasons why they're not already calm, is only excusable for those on the autistic spectrum; for anyone with any grasp of how to deal with other people it's a wholly dishonest showpiece.

And what about the debates in which he simply refused to promise a peaceful transition of power?  Did you miss them?  Because I distinctly remember them (it was the first time I ever felt afraid of what had previously seemed like a goofy but basically good-hearted-guy).  And I do think his refusal to promise NOT to attempt to subvert a lawful election is pretty damn relevant to the question of whether or not he wanted his supporters to attempt precisely that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

Freedom - or increasing socialism?

Exactly!

 

Our founding fathers revolted against England primarily on the issue of "no taxation without representation" and in modern America our ability to vote on our own representatives is one of the direct benefits they gave us (and one of our last freedoms that the culture at large still takes semi-seriously).  So any presidential candidate who DOESN'T take that freedom seriously should be extremely concerning to anyone who considers himself an O'ist!

 

Freedom, brother!  Exactly!

I'm out of the energy to continue much further tonight.  But if I don't respond to your response tonight I will do so (and continue past page 2 of this thread and start counting tu quoque's) tomorrow morning.

Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

The simplest, un-cynical explanation is normally best.

I would agree with that, given the caveat that the simplest non-contradictory and finally (after all other rational standards are exhausted) un-cynical explanation is usually the best.  It is usually good to give people the benefit of the doubt and consider them innocent until proven guilty; the alternative only to populates one's own mind with countless enemies, most of whom will not actually exist.  But when one has solid evidence (not even necessarily proof) that a person one cares about has done something evil then that MUST be looked into, any and all cynicism aside.

I'd even agree that throughout most of Trump's presidency that very same standard has vindicated the vast majority of his actions!  But not all and certainly not since he lost in November.

 

And it doesn't escape me that we're not talking about whether the capital siege was justified; only whether or not he foresaw and sanctioned the actions of some of his most maniac fans.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

And for what??? Stories and suspicions that we have NO GOOD REASON for believing!  Anyone familiar with O'ism will recall that the lack of any good reason to think something means that we call it "arbitrary", disregard it and move swiftly on with our lives.

Some people seem to have a misunderstanding about the nature of the arbitrary.

A statement (or a proposition, as logic calls it) can be true, false, or arbitrary. A true statement corresponds to reality. A false statement can be connected to reality but is found not to correspond to it. An arbitrary statement cannot be connected to reality.

However, a fact is not a statement. Some people seem to think that if you cannot integrate a fact into your worldview, then you are entitled to dismiss that fact as "arbitrary." That is absolutely wrong. All facts are true; no fact can ever be "arbitrary" (or "false").

In order to achieve objectivity you must integrate all known facts into your worldview.

It is only on this basis that you can claim, for example, that capitalism is the only moral social system. If you start leaving out facts, then the difference between capitalism and communism comes down to a question of which facts to include and which to leave out, and that effectively puts them on an equal footing, and that's why non-Objectivist defenders of capitalism have been historically ineffectual.

Integrating all facts is exactly what I am trying to do, in this issue as in all issues.

On the basis of the evidence I have, I still think it's likely that the Capitol riots were in fact led by Leftists (that's what I mean when I say that it's a false-flag operation), because the Left had everything to gain from them and the Right had everything to lose.

The courts refused to hear Trump's arguments against the election for a variety of reasons, but they never said that Trump's claims were false. Rather, they refused to hear them. From what I understand, the refusals are for bad reasons -- like the idea that "this one case wouldn't be enough to alter the outcome," when all the cases together would have been enough. Another was "you want us to disenfranchise all these voters by overturning the result?" as if fraud doesn't disenfranchise anyone. That's why these cases should have gone to the Supreme Court. The case brought by Texas and those other states should have been heard. If Trump's claims really were false, then the courts should have demonstrated that, but they didn't.

There was a report that Chief Justice Roberts didn't want to hear the Texas case because he was afraid riots would break out. That report is disputed. Still, there is a general atmosphere of intimidation, created in part by the Antifa and BLM riots, and in part by cancel culture and de-banking people and a lot of other things. So that report about Chief Justice Roberts would only be another point in the same long line, and if it's not there, then the other points still form that line. I think it's possible that a lot of judges may have been afraid because of that atmosphere. Some politicians have had rioters at their houses, too. Even the President himself is not safe from it.

The Congress was another chance for Trump. It was a small chance, but it would have been to Trump's benefit to allow it to play out normally, even if he lost. If, instead of giving up after the first state, Trump's supporters had challenged all the states, and lost, then all Trump's claims would have been put into the Congressional Record, and Congress would have had a role-call vote on it, and that also would have been in the record. That would have been important. The voters could have used all that information when deciding whom to vote for in the next Congressional election.

Instead -- another riot broke out, which fits right in with the general atmosphere of intimidation that already existed. Who was intimidated by the storming of the Capitol? The Republicans, of course, and especially the ones who supported Trump the most. They were blamed and shamed, and they were intimidated out of considering Trump's challenge of last resort, so they gave up.

If it had been their idea, would they have reacted in such a way? It seems like most of the supporters of violence in Congress, who are all on the Left, by the way, are proud when the violence is coming from their side, and they stay proud of it, and they are willing to go on record to that effect. The Republicans, not so much.

Even now, the atmosphere of intimidation continues. We even see it here on Objectivism Online!

It makes sense that Trump wanted a lot of people to lawfully gather outside the Capitol, just to show how many supporters he had. That was what he was calling for. Just a crowd of people standing there peacefully would have been a sufficient statement. He didn't call for violence. And he wanted his case heard -- not disrupted.

In order to change my mind you'd have to present an argument like this: "No, you're only seeing the trunk of the elephant, here's the entire elephant," or "No, you're seeing the 'face on Mars,' here's the more detailed picture that shows it isn't a face at all." Instead I get arguments from intimidation, and ad hominem claims, including claims that I'm somehow associated with a number of weird groups that I know nothing about because they're saying some of the same things I am. So what? If a murderer (or even just a known liar) says it's raining, am I then obliged to deny it, regardless of the actual weather?

I suppose you could try to argue that Trump greatly exaggerated the amount of fraud that occurred and that, even accounting for fraud, Biden won the election legitimately. From there you would have to believe that Trump didn't actually want his cases examined, that he wanted to present them and then sort of snatch them away as a big show, and that the Capitol riots were also arranged by Trump in order to keep the data from even being examined by Congress.

Such a theory ignores all the statistical anomalies that I cited months ago, which have not been addressed or explained -- they've been buried. Plenty of evidence was presented that these statistical anomalies were real (except maybe the Benford's Law one, which I'm not sure of) -- so it wouldn't have made sense for Trump to try to prevent them from being heard in court. Also, there were the affidavits by observers who were prevented from observing by various means. (There was also an article on Zero Hedge that I didn't cite, and I should have. It showed how the counts increased over time, so you could see the times when votes were added, and how many votes. There were some significant anomalies there, showing big regular-sized batches of Biden votes being added late at night -- after a long pause which took place at exactly the same time, like 1:42 AM or something [I don't remember the exact time] in four states. As if somebody had to coordinate things and then decide just how many batches to add.)

I guess it's just too bad that those anomalies couldn't have been seen by a court -- or even by Congress.

As for me, the result is that I see a cloud of suspicion over Biden's head -- and a cloud of suspicion over our whole election system, which could probably be tampered with again in the same way, since, well, it worked before, and the fraud was successfully covered up, at least as far as official channels are concerned.

[Edit: rewording up top.]

Edited by necrovore
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, necrovore said:

Some people seem to have a misunderstanding about the nature of the arbitrary.

Who are you telling? I mean, it's fine to say what you think, but it doesn't seem like you agree with Peikoff.

3 minutes ago, necrovore said:

If you start leaving out facts

I think the common missing fact of many of your claims have to do with the ways people can fail at their intentions or the ways people can fail to recognize what a rational course of action would be.

7 minutes ago, necrovore said:

On the basis of the evidence I have, I still think it's likely that the Capitol riots were in fact led by Leftists (that's what I mean when I say that it's a false-flag operation), because the Left had everything to gain from them and the Right had everything to lose.

This is only true if you assume that a person acted rationally. Sure, maybe the right had everything to lose, but that doesn't mean people didn't do it anyway. Another way to explain what happened is "the right had everything to lose, and because they were emotionally outraged and not thinking clearly thanks to the rally before and Donald Trump, they failed to recognize the bad strategy". In other words, you left out facts. You left out the fact that people can disastrously fail in their use of reason. All you need to give us some document or tweet or something that someone on the left planned anything that happened. 

19 minutes ago, necrovore said:

From what I understand, the refusals are for bad reasons -- like the idea that "this one case wouldn't be enough to alter the outcome,

Which cases? And not enough to alter the election, where that factors relevant, would mean that not enough of the fraudulent votes could affect that district, meaning that the vote would necessarily not affect the overall election. To even get into this, you need all the relevant info, and you probably need to be a lawyer. The bottom line is if these are bad reasons, then you don't trust the judicial system. The people who decided these cases, are they bad judges? I'm saying that because you are not a lawyer, so you do not have the expert opinion to tell us that the reasons are bad.

24 minutes ago, necrovore said:

Such a theory ignores all the statistical anomalies that I cited months ago, which have not been addressed or explained -- they've been buried.

They have been explained, but you refuse to believe the explanation. I wasn't the only one who give you an explanation. 

26 minutes ago, necrovore said:

and the fraud was successfully covered up

You already developed a theory, and now you're looking for evidence. You're doing it backwards. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Be specific. What are you comparing "like this" with? How do I know you just weren't paying very good attention before? I need examples. When was it more fair? The 1890s muckraking journalism was a thing, mostly biased to make any capitalistic thing look bad? Are you talking about the Spanish-American war, which is one of the most egregious example of media bias that supports state imperialism explicitly in American history? Are you talking about the 60s where even the NYT mischaracterized the nature of many civil rights activists except MLK? I gave you older examples even. If you are only picking up on this trend 5 or 6 years ago, then I'm afraid that you are centuries too late. 

 

Seriously guys. if you can't see the Total Narrative the msmedia promotes in collusion with one another, you need to wake up.

Going on while you nitpick the factoids. CNN tries to close down Newsmax and OAN

This  very day: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZvIgrPi6Qw

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Be specific. What are you comparing "like this" with? How do I know you just weren't paying very good attention ...

I haven't any obligation to "be specific" and it would be impossible.

If someone says: "There has been an avalanche!" would you require them to ¬specify¬ each rock and stone?

Or go see for yourself?

There has been an avalanche of Leftist controlled media promoting a single discourse. I heard the rumblings a time back and many, too many to recount, incidences of reports which confirmed that. I repeat, mind control. If it's invisible to a person then he could be under its spell.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

I haven't any obligation to "be specific" and it would be impossible.

Give an example of a time that the media was impartial. The avalanche you are referring to is the avalanche of examples where the press and media has never been impartial. If it's impossible to give an example, that's my point: the press has never been impartial, so how could you possibly come up with an example? 

Why did you think I was asking for examples of media bias, when I gave you at least 5 examples so far? I think you read the first few words and then stopped reading my post. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, necrovore said:

I suppose you could try to argue that Trump greatly exaggerated the amount of fraud that occurred and that, even accounting for fraud, Biden won the election legitimately. From there you would have to believe that Trump didn't actually want his cases examined, that he wanted to present them and then sort of snatch them away as a big show, and that the Capitol riots were also arranged by Trump in order to keep the data from even being examined by Congress.

Yes; that's exactly what I would argue.  I do think Trump actually wanted the court cases to be heard, though, because I think he himself believes the election was stolen - because that's the belief that makes him happy.  As good-hearted as he once seemed to me I don't think he's ever been accused of being logical.

 

Let's talk about the sworn affidavits of what happened in Detroit on election night, because that's one piece of his alleged evidence that I have personally looked into.  I read them.  And if they're to be believed (and given the legal penalties there would be for any falsehoods I think they generally are) there certainly were quite a few unconstitutional shenanigans happening in that city on that night.  Things were done for which the perpetrators actually deserve to spend some time in prison.  At the same time, though, it's not enough to say that these bad things happened; what Trump has been saying is that they altered the way Detroit would have voted.  And I think the very fact that these things were possible at all demonstrates that the people of Detroit had no intention of ever voting for Trump.

One person described being called many obscenities, told she was a white supremacist and then forcibly ejected from the polling location to thunderous applause.  Who was clapping for that if not actual flesh-and-blood Biden voters?  Would they have dared to do such things brazenly and in the open if there truly was any large swath of Trump voters living in the city of Detroit on that night?  The only conclusion I've found that would integrate all the facts I know about it is that Detroit was already a far-left stronghold in the first place.

So the widespread hoodlumism in Detroit couldn't possibly have taken that city from Trump; it wasn't his to begin with.  This isn't to say anything nice about those flesh-and-blood Biden voters (who, again, should spend some time in jail for what they did); just that they weren't in a position to actually alter what they were obviously trying to.

 

Let's face it: the voters in Detroit have been committed to their own destruction for many decades now.  Which brings me to this...

 

12 hours ago, necrovore said:

On the basis of the evidence I have, I still think it's likely that the Capitol riots were in fact led by Leftists (that's what I mean when I say that it's a false-flag operation), because the Left had everything to gain from them and the Right had everything to lose.

I'm not sure that's a solid form of inference to apply to this situation.

Antifa seriously harmed their own cause with what they did last Summer, I don't think anyone will ever be able to take today's media outlets seriously again after how they covered it (up), Trump's repeated allegations of voter fraud are almost certainly what cost Republicans the Georgian runoff election and if I am correct about what happened in Detroit then the scumbags behind it accomplished nothing more than to show the world their true colors.  It'd probably take me five minutes to come up with a multiple-page list of all the stupid acts of self-destruction being done throughout this entire country.  So although I usually wouldn't have anything to say about that line of reasoning, I seriously doubt it applies to any of today's public figures.

To assume that THIS crowd could ever identify their own self-interest is giving them a bit too much credit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, whYNOT said:

There has been an avalanche of Leftist controlled media promoting a single discourse. I heard the rumblings a time back and many, too many to recount, incidences of reports which confirmed that. I repeat, mind control. If it's invisible to a person then he could be under its spell.

Calm down, dude!!!  Jesus Christ; I don't like the fake news either, but you're describing them like they're Immanuel Kant and aerosolized Ebola all rolled into one!  Maybe take a break from the news for a while?  As much as I'm sure they would like to end the world they're not gonna do it within the next year or two; it'll be okay to ignore them for just a little while.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep in mind the Arizona and Wyoming GOP has censured their leadership for going against Trump.

That means people arguing for Trump are the vast majority in the GOP. They don't hear the arguments.

And they make the same ones over and over.

1. There is actual evidence of fraud on a massive (coordinated scale) (a landslide) and the courts did not allow the truth to come out
2. Tu Quoque (repeatedly)
3. His speech did not incite violence
4. And few, "law makers deserved it" (This is what our representatives deserve. Screw 'em, and screw Biden.)

But ...

4 is the one I find reprehensible. A clear sanction of violence and clearly unethical from and Objectivist standpoint.

The question is: What is the proper response?

To treat it as a valid point?

There has been no strong condemnation of the statement and I would argue that is a problem in this forum.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...