A few thoughts about January 6, 2021

Recommended Videos

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
7,660
978
118
Country
USA
Wow, tstorm has derailed what...7 of you all into a rant about climate change in a thread about the capital assault? That's some grade A misdirection on his part. It's really kind of funny, watching the one side of this "discussion" since I have him ignored. All of your posts currently boil down to "You don't know what the fuck you're talking about." Seriously though, climate change is so far afield of a political thread about violent domestic terrorists.
So @Adam Jensen brings climate change into the topic for only the reason to take broad swipes at conservatives, and a bunch of people make generally baseless claims about how wrong I am, and you consider that me derailing? I suppose it is, in a sense, because if I said nothing, you'd all manage to stay on the single masturbatory topic of how much you hate conservatives in perpetuity.
I'll be back later, potentially tomorrow. You've posted information to sink into, and I've only got a few minutes at the moment.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
13,054
6,748
118
Country
United Kingdom
No, no it isn't.
I find it funny that this tangent began with you attempting to break the associative link with climate denialism and the political right-wing, and has ended with you engaging in climate denialism.

It's also quite fitting that this should come up just after the publication of the IPCC's latest report, which includes dire warnings of the effect of warming at-or-above 1.5c, including natural disasters.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: MrCalavera and Kwak

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Jun 21, 2012
9,370
3,163
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
Wow, tstorm has derailed what...7 of you all into a rant about climate change in a thread about the capital assault? That's some grade A misdirection on his part. It's really kind of funny, watching the one side of this "discussion" since I have him ignored. All of your posts currently boil down to "You don't know what the fuck you're talking about." Seriously though, climate change is so far afield of a political thread about violent domestic terrorists.
I believe we were actually talking about CRT..... oh wait. That was a derailment by someone else.

Anyway, we live in a world of 'alternative facts'. It doesn't matter what any sides said. Real facts dont matter. It doesn't matter if a senator was so scared that he helped blockade the door. Because now he can say no one was trying to get him... all based on alternative facts.

So also; Covid, Gulf Wars, School of the Americas, Common Core and Epstein for further examples
 

Bartholomew

Elite Member
Aug 8, 2021
100
43
33
If we want to talk Jan 6th:

Is it appropriate to call the people who stormed the Capitol "terrorists"? Is that their official designation?

Is that why they're allegedly being held in solitary confinement?
 

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 4, 2014
9,651
2,179
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
If we want to talk Jan 6th:

Is it appropriate to call the people who stormed the Capitol "terrorists"? Is that their official designation?

Is that why they're allegedly being held in solitary confinement?
Attack on a non-military target to achieve socio-political aims. It fits the definition of terrorism.

At the least, they're definitely insurgents.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Avnger

Trash Goblin
Legacy
Apr 1, 2016
2,124
1,251
118
Country
United States
If we want to talk Jan 6th:

Is it appropriate to call the people who stormed the Capitol "terrorists"? Is that their official designation?

Is that why they're allegedly being held in solitary confinement?
Yes, these people fit the textbook definition of terrorists. Their "official designation" (this is a term with no meaning) is 'criminal' when convicted (just like all other people who are convicted of crimes).

Let me answer your second question with another question: Why would criminals convicted for their role in the Jan 6th insurrection deserve any type of special consideration to exempt them from solitary confinement?

Every day, there are prisoners in the US subjected to solitary confinement regardless of the exact nature of the crime that caused them to be locked up. Unless you're able to provide evidence otherwise, there's nothing to suggest that Jan 6th insurrectionists are being forced into solitary confinement at a rate beyond that of any other prisoner.

I do have to ask though: why are you questioning use of solitary confinement for these criminals but not for those convicted of other crimes, particularly non-violent ones?
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Bartholomew

Elite Member
Aug 8, 2021
100
43
33
I do have to ask though: why are you questioning use of solitary confinement for these criminals but not for those convicted of other crimes, particularly non-violent ones?
I'm just wondering if their severe crime warranted a more severe punishment. It is also my understanding that these people have yet to go to trial and yet to be proven guilty by a court of law. In other words, they are not yet convicted.

But if due process is exempted because they're (suspected?) terrorists, that would make sense.

. It fits the definition of terrorism.
That might be true, but I'm interested in if there's some official organization that decides whether or not this or that group or action is an official terrorist act.

Regular people with no authority saying "this or that is a terrorist act and they're terrorists!" is fine, but I'm wondering if there's some "official" meaning to the term, rather a colloquial one.

Like, Trump called BLM a terrorist group in a tweet once, but obviously that didn't stick.

why are you questioning use of solitary confinement for these criminals but not for those convicted of other crimes, particularly non-violent ones?
I don't know of any other people held in solitary confinement before they have been convicted of a crime, violent or non-violent.
Also, because this topic is about Jan 6th, so it would be off-topic of me talk about "other crimes".
 
Last edited:

Revnak

We must imagine Sisyphus horny
Legacy
May 25, 2020
2,944
3,099
118
Country
USA
I'm just wondering if their severe crime warranted a more severe punishment. It is also my understanding that these people have yet to go to trial and yet to be proven guilty by a court of law. In other words, they are not yet convicted.

But if due process is exempted because they're (suspected?) terrorists, that would make sense.
Yeah, and they don’t have bail so they’re in prison. None of that is exceptional.

That might be true, but I'm interested in if there's some official organization that decides whether or not this or that group or action is an official terrorist act.

Regular people with no authority saying "this or that is a terrorist act and they're terrorists!" is fine, but I'm wondering if there's some "official" meaning to the term, rather a colloquial one.

Like, Trump called BLM a terrorist group in a tweet once, but obviously that didn't stick.
Theoretically nobody does for domestic terrorism, functionally everyone outside of the most centrist types can be classified and investigated as such by the FBI or NSA.

I don't know of any other people held in solitary confinement before they have been convicted of a crime, violent or non-violent.
Also, because this topic is about Jan 6th, so it would be off-topic of me talk about "other crimes".
It’s honestly not that rare. Our prisons are torture chambers.
 

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Feb 18, 2010
3,933
1,804
118
Country
United Kingdom
Is it appropriate to call the people who stormed the Capitol "terrorists"? Is that their official designation?
As I understand it, and I might be wrong, there is no official crime of "domestic terrorism", legally the crime of terrorism only applies to non-US citizens. However, there is a general framework which defines domestic terrorism as an act which violates federal law, and which is carried out with the goal of influencing government policy through violence or intimidation. It's quite appropriate to apply this definition to many of the January 6th participants.

In terms of how they're being treated, this is the "War on Terror" in action. Under the Bush administration (and also to some extent under the Obama and Trump administrations), police and federal agencies have been given enormous powers to investigate and detain "terrorists", and many of these powers also apply to the treatment of domestic terrorists. It turns out, shockingly, that giving out massive executive powers due to a state of apparent emergency doesn't tend to result in those powers being withdrawn when the emergency is "over". Who would have known..



Honestly, as much as I hate these people and as much as it's schadenfreude to see them fall victim to policies they would have cheered 15 years ago, I have to admit that I hate the reality of carceral punishment more. Noone should be in solitary confinement, it's literally torture.
 
Last edited:

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Jun 21, 2012
9,370
3,163
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
As I understand it, and I might be wrong, there is no official crime of "domestic terrorism", legally the crime of terrorism only applies to non-US citizens. However, there is a general framework which defines domestic terrorism as an act which violates federal law, and which is carried out with the goal of influencing government policy through violence or intimidation. It's quite appropriate to apply this definition to many of the January 6th participants.

In terms of how they're being treated, this is the "War on Terror" in action. Under the Bush administration (and also to some extent under the Obama and Trump administrations), police and federal agencies have been given enormous powers to investigate and detain "terrorists", and many of these powers also apply to the treatment of domestic terrorists. It turns out, shockingly, that giving out massive executive powers due to a state of apparent emergency doesn't tend to result in those powers being withdrawn when the emergency is "over". Who would have known..



Honestly, as much as I hate these people and as much as it's schadenfreude to see them fall victim to policies they would have cheered 15 years ago, I have to admit that I hate the reality of carceral punishment more. Noone should be in solitary confinement, it's literally torture.
I don't even think the Oath Keepers, who were clearly armed to bear, targeting politicians and encouraging others to do stupid mistakes, should deserve solitary. Like, I understand maybe prison but solitary is completely unnecessary.

As to too much executive power... I lay that directly at the feet of the filibuster. If the houses have no power to pass any legislation, guess what do you think is going to happen? Someone has to respond to issue in the country and it sure isn't going to be the senate. See also the Supreme Court and their continual grab for power

Lastly, maybe stop making definitions so broad? It might bite you in the ass in a couple of decades
 

XsjadoBlayde

~ just another dread messenger & artisanal kunt ~
Apr 29, 2020
3,702
3,824
118
Tee, and indeed, hee


“The truth is, these are not very bright guys, and things got out of hand.” – Hal Holbrook

After months of being promised by the former President and his stooges that Dominion Voting Systems had RIGGED the election, we finally have our first credible investigation into voting machine tampering.

The lede in Monday’s Grand Junction Sentinel brings the Kraken: “The Mesa County Clerk’s Office is under investigation…for a breach in security over its election system.”

A breach! It’s Happening!!!

But no, the breach wasn’t coming from the anti-Trump deep state. Instead, the clerk who is under investigation for tampering with the county election system is Tina Peters, a fervent supporter of Donald Trump and amateur vaccine science aficionado, who appears to have executed a self-own of historic proportion.

On today's podcast Max Boot joins host Charlie Sykes to discuss coups past and future; vaccine passports; the politics o...
Last week Gateway Pundit reported that Q himself…errr “CodeMonkeyZ” Ron Watkins…posted a video and a few screenshots to his Telegram that had been provided by a “whistleblower.” The posts were supposed to demonstrate that Dominion Voting Systems machines could in fact be connected to the internet, which is a necessary but not sufficient element in support of their bat guano theory of election fraud.

The grainy, shaky video presented a conversation between an election official and a Dominion employee, in which the election official asks a series of leading questions in order to demonstrate how, with the help of someone on the inside, the machine could hypothetically be tampered with over the internet using the BIOS motherboard settings.

When the official shared this “bombshell” video with CodeMonkey Watkins they included in it an image of their election system’s BIOS password, which is, of course, a massive breach of voting system security.

And in doing so they stepped on a pretty large rake – because the password in the video was unique, which allowed the Colorado Secretary of State’s office to identify which county the leak came from and during which meeting it was recorded.

Oops.

It turns out the election hacker was not Antifa or a Hugo Chavez apparition but a real live human in the office of Mesa County Clerk and Recorder Tina Peters.

Peters was not exactly a surprising suspect. She had previously gained notoriety through a series of social media posts during the January 6th insurrection that attested to how easy it might be for a criminal to tamper with election equipment. This latest leak appears to have been an attempt to verify her premise.

Her posts shamed Republican Senators like Pat Toomey who were not going along with President Trump’s effort to overturn the result of the November election with the fervor that she had hoped. Among her since-deleted tweets,

  • “Their intent is not to ‘overturn’ the election. This was not an election. This was planned fraud on a grand scale. If you refuse to acknowledge that you WILL NOT be re-elected. We need others in your place that uphold the Constitution and preserve our Republic.”
  • “Shame on you! As one that administers elections in my county, you apparently have no idea how it is possible to 1) tabulate more than once ballots favoring a candidate 2) change algorithm in a voting machine (see Eric Coomer from Dominion’s Facebook ranks) UR Dirty or ignorant.”
  • “You would be wise to learn the Constitution that you swore to uphold and to protect us from enemies ‘foreign and domestic.’”
  • “Also, the vaccines are troubling in the mechanics in the RNA. I don’t want anyone messing with my RNA, my DNA or anything else – MY BODY, my right!”
While it is not yet clear whether Peters herself was involved in the breach, the tweets certainly indicate she was sympathetic to the Gateway Pundit/Qanon/CodeMonkey worldview. And according to the Sentinel, the “security information” that was posted was only accessible by “state and county election workers who have passed background checks,” meaning it was sourced from one of a very small number of people in her office.

In short, in an attempt to demonstrate that Donald Trump was still the rightful president, a county clerk tweeted that the election machines she was in charge of overseeing were in fact vulnerable, and in order to prove it someone in her office allegedly carried out the very breach she was falsely claiming must have been committed by anti-Trump forces.

Now that’s some legendary criming.

It doesn’t exactly fill one with confidence to know that it is people like Peters who will be in places of authority the next time Trump or an acolyte tries to steal an election.
Another example of the same group of conspiracy theories causing damage across the pond here, less tees and/or hees though...


A gang of people kidnapped a child after one of them believed the infant had been the victim of satanic abuse.

Three people have been found guilty of conspiracy to kidnap the child on Anglesey in November 2020 while three others admitted the charge.

Anke Hill, 51, snatched the child from the street outside their home while Wilfred Wong, 56, threatened the child's foster mother with a knife.

The pair, and four others, will be sentenced in September.

Hill, Jane Going-Hill, 60, of Pump Street, Holyhead, and Kristine Ellis-Petley, 58, of Ffordd Tudur, Holyhead, all pleaded guilty to conspiracy to kidnap.

Wong, of Pied Bull Court, Galen Place, Camden, Janet Stevenson, 67, and her husband Edward Stevenson, 69, both of Parnell Close, Maidenbower, Crawley, all denied the charge, but were found guilty by a jury.

A month-long trial was held at Caernarfon Crown Court in July, but a court order prevented any reporting of the case until now.
Karren Sawford, 48, was found not guilty and an eighth defendant, Robert Frith, was found dead in his prison cell last year.

The jury heard how Hill conspired with Wong and Janet Stevenson to kidnap the child from foster care, with the help of the other three.

Hill believed the child had been the victim of satanic abuse in the past, before being fostered, though police investigated and found there was not enough evidence to support this allegation.

The court heard the group was recruited after Hill contacted Wong, who is a campaigner against satanic ritual abuse.

Hill found Wong online, and phone records produced in court showed the pair spent many hours in conversation.

Wong put Hill in contact with Janet Stevenson, a counsellor who specialises in working with victims of satanic abuse.
Hill worked with Wong and the others to organise an elaborate plan, involving code names and a clandestine rendezvous at Bangor railway station, where one gang member arrived by train and followed another through the city at a distance.

At one stage, the conspirators also considered modifying a horsebox with a secret compartment to smuggle the child away.
On 4 November, Hill snatched the child as they returned from school while Wong threatened the foster mother with a knife, before using the same knife to slash a tyre on her car.

The foster mother, who cannot be named for legal reasons, tried to hang onto the child to stop them being dragged away.
She told the court: "The child was terrified. They kept calling my name and asking me to help. I tried to hold on as much as I could.

"But then someone came round the back of me and held a knife to me and told me to let go."

The child was then taken in a car with false number plates to a country lane outside Bangor, while a second car hired by Janet and Edward Stevenson, was waiting to take Hill, Wong and the child towards south-east England.
Going-Hill and Kristine Ellis-Petley acted as lookouts on the bridges from Anglesey to mainland Wales to spot any police activity.

Police were alerted as soon as the child was taken, and quickly managed to piece together the associations between different members of the group.

The hire car was eventually stopped by officers on the M1 in Northamptonshire later that evening.
Wong denied any involvement, saying he was in north Wales for a short walking holiday and had arranged to get a lift back with the Stevensons.

He told the court: "I'd have been more of a liability than a help with any abduction plan. I would have been too old and too slow for that sort of thing."

But the jury didn't believe his story and convicted him and the Stevensons after eight hours of deliberation.
Janet Stevenson's barrister has indicated she would appeal against the verdict.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Avnger and BrawlMan

The Rogue Wolf

Stealthy Carnivore
Legacy
Nov 25, 2007
17,491
10,275
118
Stalking the Digital Tundra
Gender
✅

XsjadoBlayde

~ just another dread messenger & artisanal kunt ~
Apr 29, 2020
3,702
3,824
118
Republicans have been accusing Democrats of voter fraud for decades, yet every time we look for voter fraud, we always seem to catch Republicans doing it.
It's evidently an effective enough tactic to preemptively gaslight everyone else first, to be this prevalent a strategy throughout political history. And in abusive family structures and cults. We should be teaching more youngens how to critically recognise and counter or avoid such manipulative behaviours where possible, I believe.

-

Mike Lindell update (large influencer in election denial/Trump reinstatement conspiracy ecosystems);


MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell’s memory may be failing him.

“Nobody said that, nobody said that, nobody said that, nobody said that, nobody said that, nobody said that, OK? I think this interview is over.”

That was Lindell speaking to VICE News on Monday as he walked to the venue where he is holding a “Cyber Symposium” in South Dakota, a three-day conference beginning Tuesday that will bring together dozens of “cyber guys” to verify what he claims is election data that will reveal fraud in all 50 states—and ultimately see former President Donald Trump return to the White House.

The conference ends on August 12. What Lindell was responding to was a question about the claim that Trump would be back in office as soon as August 13.

Lindell has been a pretty busy guy over the last few months, dealing with a $1.3 billion lawsuit brought by voting machine company Dominion for Lindell’s non-stop and baseless accusations of fraud against the company. He has also produced two conspiracy-filled documentaries about election fraud. And let’s not forget he launched a “free-speech” social network called FrankSpeech, which no one uses.

So he may simply have forgotten that he told former senior Trump adviser Steve Bannon as far back as March that Trump would be returned to the White House in August:

Or that just one month ago, he told a right-wing talk show host that August 13 was the date when the world would finally wake up to the reality that the election was a fraud and that Trump won.

Lindell’s Cyber Symposium has been widely hyped in right-wing and extremist circles as the moment of reckoning for those who dismiss election fraud conspiracies.

But the event will produce nothing of value except more disinformation fodder for the same right-wing outlets that have supported his baseless and conspiratorial rhetoric for the last eight months.

Lindell claims he was given data by unknown individuals on Jan. 9 that he has called “packet captures”—a technical format for capturing web traffic. Lindell says the data shows the Chinese Communist Party interfered in the election results in all 50 states. But those claims have already been widely debunked, and Lindell could even face legal issues for simply possessing the data. Despite this, Lindell is offering “the cyber guys” a bounty of $5 million to disprove his claim that the “packet captures” came from the November elections.

He says that there will be “70 cyber guys” at the three day event, along with around 80 members of the media, and several hundred “politicians or their delegates from almost every state.”

The conference is not open to the public, but the event is being livestreamed online for 72 hours straight, and among those watching most closely will be QAnon followers, who believe the conference will trigger Trump’s imminent return to office.

The QAnon movement is well-versed in moving goalposts when its prophecies fail. When Trump lost the election that they were assured he would win, QAnon believers moved their focus to Jan. 6 and then Vice President Mike Pence’s certification of the electoral college votes.

When that still happened—despite the QAnon-led insurrection—they moved to Biden’s inauguration on Jan. 20, claiming without evidence that that would not happen. When it did, the movement took a moment, but ultimately continued unabated.

Now they have a new date, August 13, and all eyes will be on South Dakota this week.

Ron Watkins, the former administrator of 8kun, the site that Q called home, is among the biggest pushers of the baseless election fraud conspiracy theory. He has urged his 350,000 followers on Telegram to watch Lindell’s event, and suggested that he knows what will be revealed there.

“Please wait until Mike Lindell’s cyber symposium to learn more,” Watkins wrote. “Have a strong feeling it’s going to be huge.”

Lindell told VICE News that he doesn’t know Watkins and hasn’t shared any data with him ahead of the conference.

But QAnon believers are convinced this week will deliver the proof they have been craving that their hero had the election stolen from him—and they are pointing to other “evidence” to back up their belief that August 13 is the date when the so-called “storm” will begin.

On QAnon channels in Telegram, some believers have pointed out that FEMA and the FCC are planning on August 11 to test the emergency alert system (EAS), by sending out alerts to cell phones as well as through TVs and radio. QAnon has long-viewed the EAS as a possible vector for Trump to disseminate his message that the storm has begun.

Others are pointing out that this week could also see the release of the Arizona audit report by Cyber Ninjas, which many Trump supporters believe will show evidence of voter fraud in Maricopa County, and trigger a domino effect of similar audits that will see Trump return to office.

A spokesperson for the Arizona Senate’s liaison office told VICE News on Monday that the report would be available “later this month.”

QAnon believers are also pointing to a conspiracy pushed by Pizzagate-proponent Jack Posobiec, that the White House is planning to announced nationwide COVID-19 lockdowns to deal with the spread of the Delta variant—a claim for which there is no evidence. The conspiracy theory holds that the government is actually going to announce the lockdown to cover up the “evidence” that will come out of Lindell’s conference.

And after Jan. 6 saw online conspiracies give way to real world violence, the authorities are now on alert for something similar happening when the promised reckoning doesn’t happen on August 13.

On Friday, the Department of Homeland Security warned state and local authorities about an increase in calls for violence online tied to election-related conspiracy theories, CNN reported

“DHS is providing awareness of reports regarding an increasing but modest level of activity online calling for violence in response to unsubstantiated claims of fraud related to the 2020 election and the alleged ‘reinstatement’ of former President Trump,” the agency said in a public safety notification to law enforcement across the country.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
7,660
978
118
Country
USA
It's also quite fitting that this should come up just after the publication of the IPCC's latest report, which includes dire warnings of the effect of warming at-or-above 1.5c, including natural disasters.
Ok, cite that. Bring up the report, find the part that says 1.5C of warming will cause natural disasters, quote it.




So far, all we’ve managed is to document here is what we don’t know for sure yet.
Alright, 4 links: link number 1 is basically about increasing storms in Greenland and Northern Europe, which is interesting stuff, and likely evidence of climate change... well... changing the climate. But that's not really in itself natural disasters.

Link number 2 makes the best case, I think best contained in this sentence: "The new findings may explain a paradox. Hurricanes’ frequency and intensity have remained the same over the last century, even as inflation-adjusted damages have soared." To that, I am willing to say you have provided a good argument for a type of natural disaster getting worse. Like, people run with the claim that hurricanes (or tropical storms) are more frequent or more intense, but that doesn't seem to be true. This article acknowledges that. The third link says:
"Real-world data, however, has been trickier to come by. Hurricanes – also known as tropical cyclones and typhoons, depending on where they originate – only appear sporadically, and can be difficult to study. Plus, these storms are often ignored if they don't directly impact upon on humans. "The main hurdle we have for finding trends is that the data are collected using the best technology at the time," says Kossin. "Every year the data are a bit different than last year, each new satellite has new tools and captures data in different ways, so in the end we have a patchwork quilt of all the satellite data that have been woven together."

It then sort of bulldozes the elephant in the room with roughly "but computers can help interpret images, so we've got more confidence now!", but the 4th link again says "the reason more hurricanes are being observed may be due to an improved ability to observe them, thanks to aircraft, radar and satellites." That is certainly just as true with regards to measuring the intensity of hurricanes, the better we get at measuring, the more often we will capture the highest wind speeds. Can I say with confidence then that hurricanes aren't getting stronger? No, there isn't data for that.

But the bit about maintaining strength longer over land is pretty compelling.

But we do know there is extra energy in the system now, so could it have any other effects on tropical storms? Here, the science is far less equivocal, and there is a broad consensus that storms are increasing in strength, or severity. This attribute, called the Power Dissipation Index, measures the duration and intensity (wind speed) of storms, and research has found that since the mid-1970s, there has been an increase in the energy of storms.

Recent research has shown that we are experiencing more storms with higher wind speeds, and these storms will be more destructive, last longer and make landfall more frequently than in the past. Because this phenomenon is strongly associated with sea surface temperatures, it is reasonable to suggest a strong probability that the increase in storm intensity and climate change are linked.
The problem with the notion that storms are more frequent and intense due to climate change is not the logic of it. It's the actual data. There's a reasonable logic to the idea that warmer water and moister air will lead to bigger storms. There isn't, from what I've seen, particularly good data to suggest that's actually happening, at least not yet. For example, take a look at this:
1628604225927.png
The green line is the measured number of hurricanes, and it looks very much like an obvious upward trend. The orange line above is an attempt to correct for the lack of current technology is past measurements, and suddenly there doesn't seem to be a long term upward trend. The data that demonstrates strengthening storms over time is essentialy us measuring more strength over time, which is going to vary with our ability to measure, as these pieces acknowledge.

Jumping back up to something you said: "So far, all we’ve managed is to document here is what we don’t know for sure yet." Why are you so confident we will know that in the future? If you know we lack the data now, why are you so sure it will appear? Why is it possible for me to say "the globe is warming due in large part to anthropogenic factors, and it will change the climate around the globe, likely leading to negative effects on living conditions for people in many places, but there isn't currently scientific evidence to justify the conclusion that natural disasters are getting worse and will worsen further in the future" and suddenly a bunch of people think I'm a crazy anti-science conspiracy theorist. Why is a person's position on science judged not by their interest in the data but rather by their willingness to doomsay?
 

happyninja42

Elite Member
Legacy
May 13, 2010
8,577
2,990
118
It's evidently an effective enough tactic to preemptively gaslight everyone else first, to be this prevalent a strategy throughout political history. And in abusive family structures and cults. We should be teaching more youngens how to critically recognise and counter or avoid such manipulative behaviours where possible, I believe.
We should, but the conservative right are adamantly opposed to education and critical thinking, and think you should just leave it all up to geezus. Around here, I regularly hear republican idiots, openly mocking things like education, and being skeptical of information you are presented with, especially when it contradicts their religion and party line, which these days, are the same thing, since they've politicized their faith into their party goals. They've very cleverly folded all of it into this one horrifying hydra monster, allowing them to counter any criticism of any aspect of it, by saying you are attacking the other parts.

Seriously the LAST thing they want is to teach children critical thinking skills. Their entire foundation of control is based on blind loyalty to their leaders.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
7,660
978
118
Country
USA
Republicans have been accusing Democrats of voter fraud for decades, yet every time we look for voter fraud, we always seem to catch Republicans doing it.
Both parties have had people guilty of voter fraud. Setting aside all the messing with rules due to the pandemic and looking only at explicit crimes, I would concede there seems to be more Republicans committing fraud in 2020 than Democrats, but that's not some long term trend. Absolutely, Democrats commit fraud as well.

Like, if you look for voter fraud, you will likely always find both parties doing it. Knowing that, how how about we take reasonable precautions?
since they've politicized their faith into their party goals.
Is that any worse than the left that has religiousized their politics? Is there really a meaningful difference between people who push their moral code into politics and people who treat their politics as a moral code?
 

Seanchaidh

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 21, 2009
6,132
3,706
118
Country
United States of America
Is there really a meaningful difference between people who push their moral code into politics and people who treat their politics as a moral code?
If one moral code is based on archaic religious beliefs or a weird obsession with regulating the sex lives of others, and the other isn't, then yes.