Red Mosquito

BurtReynolds wrote:Things are escalating because that's the only thing that can happen, and the RM crew will continue to bury their heads in the sand saying "this isn't happening this isn't happening".

Are you saying....change isn't happening? I dont get this point. Are you saying...we are saying nothing will happen? Are you saying nothing is happening?

tragabigzanda wrote:I just learned that the confederacy only lasted for four years. This is what these morons want to defend?

You saw the meme too? Nirvana lasted longer than the confederacy.

How long did you think the war lasted?

Mickey wrote:Mariame and other activists like Ruth Wilson Gilmore have been calling for police and prison abolition for decades. Their critiques have been adopted by people who want to reform the system without abolishing it entirely. There is sometimes an overlap in rhetoric. Again, why would this be controversial.

Because there is a point at which someone is intentionally disregarding the reality of the message in order to not disrupt their belief system. Protecting predisposed beliefs, on the other hand, is a process by which every bit of information that doesn’t support those beliefs is dismissed, treated to disproportionate skepticism, and viewed as disprovable via posed questions (rather than direct response facts). Like posting tweets mocking people for not understanding what “defund” means

digster wrote:
But the inquisition!

What would you say happened to the opinion editor at the NYT if not a coordinated attempt at silencing disagreement?

Bi_3 wrote:

digster wrote:
But the inquisition!

What would you say happened to the opinion editor at the NYT if not a coordinated attempt at silencing disagreement?

As much as I would love to "silence" Tom Cotton by hogtying him and tossing him into an above-ground swimming pool in front of his family, there is a massive difference between "silencing disagreement" and outrage over an opinion page editor *seeking out* a sitting congressperson for an op-ed about using the military to quell domestic unrest.

Your other comment was word salad.

tragabigzanda wrote:

Mickey wrote:I'm sure some people don't mean abolish the police, but obviously many do. Not sure why this is controversial.

Because certain messaging around the idea makes it really hard for potential Trump defectors to support a Biden presidency.

Biden has explicitly said he doesn't want to defund the police, so I'm not sure why this matters. It's not the responsibility for non-electoralist activists to shape electoral messages. You can disagree with the call to defund the police but it's not a real gotcha to say, "actually they DO want to defund them." No shit, they've been saying this for decades.

BurtReynolds wrote:Things are escalating because that's the only thing that can happen, and the RM crew will continue to bury their heads in the sand saying "this isn't happening this isn't happening".

Again, a big gap between saying "your sense of an impending leftist cultural revolution smacks of white-guy paranoia and has little empirical support" and "there is actually no unrest," but this entire thread today has been an exercise in collapsing difference, so you're not alone here.

Mickey wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

digster wrote:
But the inquisition!

What would you say happened to the opinion editor at the NYT if not a coordinated attempt at silencing disagreement?

As much as I would love to "silence" Tom Cotton by hogtying him and tossing him into an above-ground swimming pool in front of his family, there is a massive difference between "silencing disagreement" and outrage over an opinion page editor *seeking out* a sitting congressperson for an op-ed about using the military to quell domestic unrest.

Your other comment was word salad.

There is no difference between "silencing disagreement" and pushing out an editor who printed a disagreement, and taking steps to insure it doesn't happen again in the future.

And his comments on military action were tame, and agreed with by most of the country. Talk about pearl clutching.

BurtReynolds wrote:

Mickey wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

digster wrote:
But the inquisition!

What would you say happened to the opinion editor at the NYT if not a coordinated attempt at silencing disagreement?

As much as I would love to "silence" Tom Cotton by hogtying him and tossing him into an above-ground swimming pool in front of his family, there is a massive difference between "silencing disagreement" and outrage over an opinion page editor *seeking out* a sitting congressperson for an op-ed about using the military to quell domestic unrest.

Your other comment was word salad.

There is no difference between "silencing disagreement" and pushing out an editor who printed a disagreement, and taking steps to insure it doesn't happen again in the future.

And his comments on military action were tame, and agreed with by most of the country. Talk about pearl clutching.

Lmao okay, we're done here. Have fun drawing your animal friends.

Bi_3 wrote:
What would you say happened to the opinion editor at the NYT if not a coordinated attempt at silencing disagreement?

I've been posting about in the Media thread, and would rather not rehash the same arguments, but I do feel quite certain that I would never have an argument that would convince you. As I said in that thread, the 'big bad media is out to get us' has been around forever, and is so fundamental to being on the right in this country that it's not going anywhere.

And to be honest, it is what it is and that's how it will be; if conservatism in the U.S. can't get an erection without feeling oppressed by the Liberal Media Hollywood Ivy League Elite, fine; whatever gets them going. But asking everyone else to buy into the fetish is a taller order.

digster wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:
What would you say happened to the opinion editor at the NYT if not a coordinated attempt at silencing disagreement?

I've been posting about in the Media thread, and would rather not rehash the same arguments, but I do feel quite certain that I would never have an argument that would convince you. As I said in that thread, the 'big bad media is out to get us' has been around forever, and is so fundamental to being on the right in this country that it's not going anywhere.

And to be honest, it is what it is and that's how it will be; if conservatism in the U.S. can't get an erection without feeling oppressed by the Liberal Media Hollywood Ivy League Elite, fine; whatever gets them going. But asking everyone else to buy into the fetish is a taller order.

You never answered the question in the media thread either. You just keep babbling about narrative and persecution complexes.

Mickey wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:Things are escalating because that's the only thing that can happen, and the RM crew will continue to bury their heads in the sand saying "this isn't happening this isn't happening".

Again, a big gap between saying "your sense of an impending leftist cultural revolution smacks of white-guy paranoia and has little empirical support" and "there is actually no unrest," but this entire thread today has been an exercise in collapsing difference, so you're not alone here.

Rest assured that I've registered the fact that you guys think we are just being paranoid. It's abundantly clear.

I do have one lingering concern, though: was Senator Tom Cotton's proposal broadly popular, or does he hold dissenting views which are being silenced through Bennett's resignation? Which is it? Because it can't be both a common sense proposal that many agree with and a minority view being squashed by the big bad liberal media, especially when, again, Cotton as a sitting senator has a number of other outlets for his views, including the ol senate floor.

Nevermind the fact that James Bennett as an editor has a responsibility to the NYT, and therefore to their bottom line, and that if he makes the decision to print something broadly unpopular with their readers leading to a wave of subscription cancellations, he is actually *failing* in his job.

BurtReynolds wrote:

Mickey wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:Things are escalating because that's the only thing that can happen, and the RM crew will continue to bury their heads in the sand saying "this isn't happening this isn't happening".

Again, a big gap between saying "your sense of an impending leftist cultural revolution smacks of white-guy paranoia and has little empirical support" and "there is actually no unrest," but this entire thread today has been an exercise in collapsing difference, so you're not alone here.

Rest assured that I've registered the fact that you guys think we are just being paranoid. It's abundantly clear.

Cool, now do the empirical support part, or would you rather just repeat your little speech about going to sleep? I'm sure that kind of V for Vendetta energy will catch on eventually bud.

Mickey wrote:I do have one lingering concern, though: was Senator Tom Cotton's proposal broadly popular, or does he hold dissenting views which are being silenced through Bennett's resignation? Which is it? Because it can't be both a common sense proposal that many agree with and a minority view being squashed by the big bad liberal media, especially when, again, Cotton as a sitting senator has a number of other outlets for his views, including the ol senate floor.

Nevermind the fact that James Bennett as an editor has a responsibility to the NYT, and therefore to their bottom line, and that if he makes the decision to print something broadly unpopular with their readers leading to a wave of subscription cancellations, he is actually *failing* in his job.

They are dissenting views within the liberal media sphere that NYT and its staff are a part of and goes against the broader liberal establishment narrative. It's apparently not a dissenting opinion with the public at large, to the liberal media's undying frustration.