8 ms·

Doesn't exactly look worthy of losing our collective freedom of speech and right to assemble over. A stark contrast over the story being pushed in the media.

Doesn't exactly look worthy of losing our collective freedom of speech and right to assemble over. A stark contrast over the story being pushed in the media. Yet this event will be used as a scapegoat to push those very things in the near future. Just know that any laws passed or precedents set will be used first on the "radical right", will undoubtedly be used on the anti-vax and conspiracy crowd but will eventually be used on the anti-war left, and then simply "dissidents". If you haven't realized it yet, the wheels are turning to silence unapproved narratives forever. The media campaign just screams the phrase "manufacturing consent".

deeviant 6y ago
So it's not the people that participated in an seditious attack on the capital and the most cherished democratic process, the democratic choosing of the US president that are the problem here? They built gallows outside the capital, they screamed "hang Mike Pence" because he didn't literally attempt to end American democracy for them. It's still "those other people who want to take our freedumbs away" that are the problem? This feels a lot like the group of people whose first reaction to when a school gets massacred by yet another school shooting is, "My Second Amendment is going to be under attack now, this sucks!"
- prohobo 6y ago
  Exactly, that's how this works. They take all of our freedoms away while you cheer them on. You know, this isn't the first time it's happened. People aren't just pulling this out of thin air. There's a very long history of these things playing out that way, time after time. We are currently in an era, since 2001, where every time the government or corporations decide to do something to "protect" us, they end up pushing us further into serfdom. What I don't understand is how people still don't know their history, and think this time it's somehow different.
  - deeviant 6y ago
    > What I don't understand is how people still don't know their history, and think this time it's somehow different. Yes, let's talk about history. Let's see, was there another case study in history where you have a failed coup attempt spurred on by a egotistical leader whose shtick was to scapegoat sections of the population and play "us vs them" politics? How did that turn out?
    - Sprbdg 6y ago
      A 'failed coup' is hyperbole.
    - hajile 6y ago
      If you're going to make claims as serious as attempting a coup, you'd better have evidence. NOBODY was charged with rioting, let alone sedition or insurrection. Less than 30 in a crowd of a couple hundred thousand got charged with anything more serious than some variant of unlawful entry (and only about 100 people are wanted at all). If such charges could be reasonably made, don't you think they would make them? The prosecutor isn't an idiot. He/She knows that no reasonable jury will convict on those charges. It would even be a great political win if they could get them to stick, but it's so far out of reach that they won't take on the loss and resulting publicity. It's far easier for the media to make claims than to substantiate them. I'd guess that there's a serious risk of several big media companies being sued.
      - deeviant 6y ago
        I'm using the same standard of evidence as those that claim the election was "stolen", "rigged", "totally rigged election I won bigger than the biggest winner of all time". If you want to clamor for higher standards of evidence, start with them. Also the mob's purpose was to disrupt the electoral process and to coerce Pence to subvert the will of the American people. The evidence is plastered all over the internet in the many videos posted by said insurrectionists. Insurrection: a violent uprising against an authority or government. Let's see 5 people dead(check, violent). Attempting to destroy democracy in American by attempting to nullify the vote of the people (check, definitely an uprising against the government). Edit: And... conspiracy charges just filed: https://www.wsj.com/articles/first-conspiracy-charges-filed-over-capitol-riot-11611080191 https://www.wsj.com/articles/first-conspiracy-charges-filed-.... Be real, there are going to be many charges related to this event, it's a common practice to use a limited set of charges to begin the arrest and prosecution process and filling in more charges as the investigations progresses.
  - scsilver 6y ago
    I dont understand how you arent seeing the present. Parlar is back up and you are still whining about private organizations excercizing their right to not assemble with non protected classes. Now if you have an anti trust problem with these companies, I think you would be hitting on more important protections of liberties. Are you using your energy to protest against Florida silencing that data scientist? That is direct government censorship of life protecting information and government accountability. Why us that not as important than treating Parlar with extraodinary privileges that we dont provide to any other outlet? It makes me think these free speech arguments are made in less than good faith.
- dudeithinkBLM 6y ago
  I'm afraid I see it differently. After years of carefully watching the media, I've realized that they do not have the citizen's best interests at heart. Whatever they're pushing, I'm intensely suspicious of. Here's an interesting thought experiment for you to conduct: What if these incidiary figures committing violence, egging on fellow protestors and erecting guillotines at the Capitol were actually bad actors with a nefarious agenda. The crazier the crowd looks, the easier it is to ram through legislation that curtails the right to dissent. Personally I find it completely believable and considering the events of the last couple years, likely.
- Sprbdg 6y ago
  You don't appreciate freedom of speech until you personally lose it. That usually happens after others you don't like have already lost theirs.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> Doesn’t exactly look worthy of losing our collective freedom of speech and right to assemble over. No one has suggested it is, so I’m not sure why you are beating that strawman.
- dudeithinkBLM 6y ago
  Unfortunately it's not exactly spelled out for you like that. Can you imagine though? As seen on a hypothetical NBC Nightly News broadcast: "The government is using its influence over corporate media to shape public opinion in an effort to remove constitutionally protected rights like free speech and the right to assemble.. Now is the time to protest if you want to have any chance at keeping them" That would never happen. Efforts like this much more hidden and shrouded in secrecy. Out of necessity... They don't want protesting. The theft of your most sacred rights will not be broadcasted to you before it happens. All of a sudden you'll wake up one day, and they'll be gone. Unless you resist of course.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > The theft of your most sacred rights will not be broadcasted to you before it happens. I’ve seen plenty of people actively working to suppress voting rights, free speech and other free expression rights, due process rights, the right to keep and bear arms, and other rights I and/or many others view as “sacred” who openly broadcast the restrictions they want to impose on those rights and the claimed justifications for them. Of course, if you want to argue against an occult conspiracy against rights, that’s fine, too, but its better if you provide some reason other than “If it did, you wouldn’t see it” to believe that occult conspiracy exists.

deeviant 6y ago

So it's not the people that participated in an seditious attack on the capital and the most cherished democratic process, the democratic choosing of the US president that are the problem here? They built gallows outside the capital, they screamed "hang Mike Pence" because he didn't literally attempt to end American democracy for them. It's still "those other people who want to take our freedumbs away" that are the problem? This feels a lot like the group of people whose first reaction to when a school gets massacred by yet another school shooting is, "My Second Amendment is going to be under attack now, this sucks!"

prohobo 6y ago
Exactly, that's how this works. They take all of our freedoms away while you cheer them on. You know, this isn't the first time it's happened. People aren't just pulling this out of thin air. There's a very long history of these things playing out that way, time after time. We are currently in an era, since 2001, where every time the government or corporations decide to do something to "protect" us, they end up pushing us further into serfdom. What I don't understand is how people still don't know their history, and think this time it's somehow different.
- deeviant 6y ago
  > What I don't understand is how people still don't know their history, and think this time it's somehow different. Yes, let's talk about history. Let's see, was there another case study in history where you have a failed coup attempt spurred on by a egotistical leader whose shtick was to scapegoat sections of the population and play "us vs them" politics? How did that turn out?
  - Sprbdg 6y ago
    A 'failed coup' is hyperbole.
  - hajile 6y ago
    If you're going to make claims as serious as attempting a coup, you'd better have evidence. NOBODY was charged with rioting, let alone sedition or insurrection. Less than 30 in a crowd of a couple hundred thousand got charged with anything more serious than some variant of unlawful entry (and only about 100 people are wanted at all). If such charges could be reasonably made, don't you think they would make them? The prosecutor isn't an idiot. He/She knows that no reasonable jury will convict on those charges. It would even be a great political win if they could get them to stick, but it's so far out of reach that they won't take on the loss and resulting publicity. It's far easier for the media to make claims than to substantiate them. I'd guess that there's a serious risk of several big media companies being sued.
    - deeviant 6y ago
      I'm using the same standard of evidence as those that claim the election was "stolen", "rigged", "totally rigged election I won bigger than the biggest winner of all time". If you want to clamor for higher standards of evidence, start with them. Also the mob's purpose was to disrupt the electoral process and to coerce Pence to subvert the will of the American people. The evidence is plastered all over the internet in the many videos posted by said insurrectionists. Insurrection: a violent uprising against an authority or government. Let's see 5 people dead(check, violent). Attempting to destroy democracy in American by attempting to nullify the vote of the people (check, definitely an uprising against the government). Edit: And... conspiracy charges just filed: https://www.wsj.com/articles/first-conspiracy-charges-filed-over-capitol-riot-11611080191 https://www.wsj.com/articles/first-conspiracy-charges-filed-.... Be real, there are going to be many charges related to this event, it's a common practice to use a limited set of charges to begin the arrest and prosecution process and filling in more charges as the investigations progresses.
- scsilver 6y ago
  I dont understand how you arent seeing the present. Parlar is back up and you are still whining about private organizations excercizing their right to not assemble with non protected classes. Now if you have an anti trust problem with these companies, I think you would be hitting on more important protections of liberties. Are you using your energy to protest against Florida silencing that data scientist? That is direct government censorship of life protecting information and government accountability. Why us that not as important than treating Parlar with extraodinary privileges that we dont provide to any other outlet? It makes me think these free speech arguments are made in less than good faith.
dudeithinkBLM 6y ago
I'm afraid I see it differently. After years of carefully watching the media, I've realized that they do not have the citizen's best interests at heart. Whatever they're pushing, I'm intensely suspicious of. Here's an interesting thought experiment for you to conduct: What if these incidiary figures committing violence, egging on fellow protestors and erecting guillotines at the Capitol were actually bad actors with a nefarious agenda. The crazier the crowd looks, the easier it is to ram through legislation that curtails the right to dissent. Personally I find it completely believable and considering the events of the last couple years, likely.
Sprbdg 6y ago
You don't appreciate freedom of speech until you personally lose it. That usually happens after others you don't like have already lost theirs.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> Doesn’t exactly look worthy of losing our collective freedom of speech and right to assemble over. No one has suggested it is, so I’m not sure why you are beating that strawman.

dudeithinkBLM 6y ago
Unfortunately it's not exactly spelled out for you like that. Can you imagine though? As seen on a hypothetical NBC Nightly News broadcast: "The government is using its influence over corporate media to shape public opinion in an effort to remove constitutionally protected rights like free speech and the right to assemble.. Now is the time to protest if you want to have any chance at keeping them" That would never happen. Efforts like this much more hidden and shrouded in secrecy. Out of necessity... They don't want protesting. The theft of your most sacred rights will not be broadcasted to you before it happens. All of a sudden you'll wake up one day, and they'll be gone. Unless you resist of course.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > The theft of your most sacred rights will not be broadcasted to you before it happens. I’ve seen plenty of people actively working to suppress voting rights, free speech and other free expression rights, due process rights, the right to keep and bear arms, and other rights I and/or many others view as “sacred” who openly broadcast the restrictions they want to impose on those rights and the claimed justifications for them. Of course, if you want to argue against an occult conspiracy against rights, that’s fine, too, but its better if you provide some reason other than “If it did, you wouldn’t see it” to believe that occult conspiracy exists.