It’s official Joe Biden becomes the 46 President of the United States.

[NeoWonk]

Jim Watkins is most likely "Q".

Dude, that's a Conspiracy Theory. But on the other hand he does look an awful lot like Captain Sweat Pants...

 

[Dougie]

Dude, that's a Conspiracy Theory. But on the other hand he does look an awful lot like Captain Sweat Pants...

It's called speculation about one individual.

A conspiracy would involve numerous people. There is nothing wrong with conspiracy theories per se. Of course there are groups of people that commit crimes together or businesses that collude. However, if you're someone like Marjorie Taylor Greene that believes that "the Jews" are to blame for the global problems then you probably shouldn't be in congress.

People like her bring out the lowest common denominator. It's the mexicans, it's the jews...that's why I'm a loser.

 

[ben]

Peter Navarro releases mind-blowing third volume of report regarding depth of 2020 election fraud proving yet again that Trump’s victory was stolen bla bla bla etc

"we live and communicate here and avoid you. Go away. "

In other words, "I don't want to hear opinions I disagree with. That's what I call 'communication'".

Authoritarians simply can't compete in a Free Market of ideas.

Here is the thing. These people have cracked the code in a way.

One of Steve Bannon’s key insights, was that too much is the same as too little. From the horse’s mouth:

Bannon seems to view the Democrats less as the opposition party than figures of fun. “The Democrats don’t matter,” he had said to me over our lunch. “The real opposition is the media. And the way to deal with them is to flood the zone with shit.”​

Arguing with someone makes some sense as long as there’s some good faith in the process. Problem starts when there is a machine dedicated to pushing out bad-faith crap, all day, without fail. The moment you debunk one assertion - that the evidence at best does not support at all and at worst conclusively disproves - there’s 10 more coming at you, all said with the confidence and force of fact.

When the fellow you’re arguing with is a troll that has no compunction about quoting it all to you, no matter how ridiculous, you have essentially 3 options, which really are 2, which essentially boil down to 1:

1. Waste time - and more time - and still more time - debunking every single piece of garbage sent your way, like in the first quote. More on this later.
2. If ever you tire of this - and if you are normal, you inevitably will - you will immediately hear the grown-up version of the schoolyard - “Scared of fighting me, huh?” - see the second quote.
3. The only option you have is to eventually stop engaging, which is essentially a repeat of 2 but for good.

This is how arguing with trolls works. The only winning move is not to play.

There is great importance in reaching those who can be persuaded, not to get involved in a cult that prioritizes loyalty to the cause above reason. For that, a periodic demonstration of the bad faith involved must suffice. Unless you get people who can make a day-job out of debunking this shit - that’s where responsible, trusted media comes in. That’s why Bannon hates it.

=========

For an example of how this works, I will refer you to what may well have been considered one of the more grotesque single events of the year before the January 6 putsch. (Technically that’s already last year, but it appears that 2021 actually starts on January 20). I refer to when, in the middle of protests about George Floyd’s killing, after being ridiculed in the media for hunkering in the White House bunker, President Trump decided to show he’s in control. The way he chose to do this was by walking over to a church just across Lafayette Square and having his photo snapped with a Bible there. The area in the vicinity was full of people protesting peacefully and lawfully. There were cleared out by force in a way that engendered immediate and sustained outrage. And predictably, Trumpworld responded with a volley of easily disprovable lies.

Tim Miller at the Bulwark does a masterful job of firstly debunking the lies involved. But more importantly, once he’s done doing that, he dissects the entire process and purpose of the non-stop lying:

A few years ago David Frum wrote about how gun-rights activists defend their turf whenever there’s a mass shooting. Rather than discussing the broad fact pattern, they beat the reformers to death with minutiae. “It wasn’t an automatic weapon, you ignorant slut. It was a semi-auto on burst-mode with a clip extender!” And then the two sides go round and round on what Armalite is until you turn into a corn cob and another school gets shot up. Rinse and repeat.​

​

But whatever you think about the gun crowd, at least they know the technical details they’re talking about. The MAGA Pravda Gaslighters don’t even bother going that far. Like their leader, they’ve come to understand that the Big Lie doesn’t even have to be plausible.​

​

Its power comes just from the act of speaking it out loud. It shows that the liar has the power and the listener does not. It gives the uneducated foot soldiers the only talking point they need to feel like they “won” the battle in the comments section on their niece’s Facebook post.​

​

This isn’t an attempt to cover the government’s tracks. It’s just another assertion of dominance.​

So yeah, we don’t have a problem with the free market of ideas (not “Free Market” - what’s up with the Trumpy random capitalization anyways?)

We do have a problem with the flea market down the road, where odds are you’re always getting a cheap knockoff, the plastic bags rip at the slightest pull, the perfume is actually cat piss mixed with vinegar, and the pudding... never mind.

That market can stand, mind you. Nobody is closing it.

But I’d stay away myself, and will sure let people know it’s a waste of your money, if not a health hazard.

 

[Aztangogirl]

Boo hoo indeed. When city crime gets bad enough, white women will vote republican and republicans will take back the white house. Wait for it.

Nope

 

[camberiu]

"Amid growing security concerns, California National Guard troops were deployed throughout downtown Sacramento early Saturday to protect property and maintain safety during potentially violent protests expected through Inauguration Day on Wednesday."

 

[MilHojas]

Can The Forces Unleashed By Trump's Big Election Lie Be Undone?

President-elect Joe Biden and Democrats in Congress have called Trump's insistence that the election was rigged the "big lie." The term has roots in Nazi Germany and echoes throughout fascist states.

www.npr.org

 

[Macanudo]

that’s where responsible, trusted media comes in.

IF responsible trusted media actually existed, we would be in a better position to have a civil discussion. I’d be very interested in knowing what sources you consider to be trusted responsible media.

 

[ben]

IF responsible trusted media actually existed, we would be in a better position to have a civil discussion. I’d be very interested in knowing what sources you consider to be trusted responsible media.

It’s not hard. I would suggest you choose your media the way you choose your groceries. Say, fruits and vegetables.

You learn over time to trust some vendors. You learn with experience - sometimes the hard way - that some stores tend to sell fruits past their due date.
While you might not impose a blanket ban on that store, you’ll pay a little more attention to the stuff you’re getting there.
And some stores you will decide are simply not worth your time.

Media consumption works the same way. If you want a decent media diet, you will choose your sources not based on whether or not they agree with your POV, but whether their news is straight - well-sourced, holds up over time, not contradicted in any serious way (“fake news!” does not count). Start with individual writers. With time you will learn to trust outlets as well, to a point.

Some publications, you will notice, take their credibility seriously and will go to some lengths - in some cases extreme lengths - not to screw it up. This includes prompt corrections and/or retractions when someone does screw up, as is almost inevitable over time. It also includes rules on named sources and in what cases to allow anonymous ones. These are but a couple of examples, there are many more. There are reasons why every major news organization has manuals and rules and standards and all that. Again, credibility is the coin of the realm here.

You will learn to separate “fluff” from actual assertions being made and/or opinions being expressed. You will notice some outlets whose reporting is impeccable or close to that, but who put a certain “slant” on their reporting (headlines, emphasis) that you may or may not like. And you will notice some that do not take their credibility seriously, that regurgitate claims that have long been debunked, that draw little or no line between fact and opinion. Etc.

You will learn to tell between opinion that you don’t like but that makes a serious argument that needs serious debunking, and who simply relies on facts that are arranged (at best) to suit the argument. Hell, there was a time I checked Hannity regularly, before deciding that even as a POV-I-disagree-with, he skewed things so egregiously that he was simply not worth my time. But at any rate, you make a point of reading news and opinion from POV that make you uncomfortable. You ask yourself what it is that you dispute. Is it the facts? Is it just the conclusion? How much can you reject about the argument, and how much should you question your own assumptions?

This all sounds harder than it is, at least once you get used to it. You don’t spend hours doing groceries, you already know your standards and know what to look for and what to avoid. You take words seriously, it’s much the same.

 

[ben]

IF responsible trusted media actually existed, we would be in a better position to have a civil discussion. I’d be very interested in knowing what sources you consider to be trusted responsible media.

If you want a real-world example, I’d suggest you pick a starting point where the facts are no longer really in dispute, and go from there.
I can offer you an example if you like.

I refer to the aforelinked piece about the outrageous use of force in clearing out protesters so a president could go to a church he never attends and take a photo with a book he never reads.

There was a mass of bullshit offered in justification of this violence at the time. The protesters were violent (they weren’t). It wasn’t tear gas (it was). They didn’t use rubber bullets (they did). Etc.

Among many others, Tim Miller at the Bulwark went ahead not only debunking this avalanche of lies - not skewing, not slanting, verifiable lying. He also hit the ball out of the park in analyzing the motivations behind it.

But leave the analysis for later. Start with the facts. Read the piece, watch the linked video, find other footage if you are so inclined, and see for yourself. Once you have established that the facts he quotes are accurate - and I cannot see how you can fail to reach that conclusion - go back and see who among the sources you read was spreading any of these lies. Ask yourself why they were doing that. See who was falsely accusing whom of misinformation. Ask yourself why they were doing that.

Continue to other incidents that were in contention. Spend the time - see who says what. Start to ask why some people - and some outlets - make sure the POV comes before the facts. Take note of who routinely resorts to cliches, or claims that are hard to prove or disprove, in service of a specific agenda. Apply some critical thinking - when someone points at a video that will allegedly blow the cover of the bad conspiratorial media, as Redpossum did the other day, see what is being alleged, then look at the video and you will see it shows no such thing.

Me, I know whom I trust, whom I don’t, and why. The “why” is rarely the kind of stuff that fits on a forum like this or that too many people will find interesting. But as a process, it is of paramount importance - if fact is to be separated from fiction.

 

[Renzi]

If you want a real-world example, I’d suggest you pick a starting point where the facts are no longer really in dispute, and go from there.
I can offer you an example - the aforelinked piece about the outrageous use of force in clearing out protesters so a president could go to a church he never attends and take a photo with a book he never reads.

There was a mass of bullshit offered in justification of this at the time. Among many others, Tim Miller at the Bulwark went ahead not only debunking this avalanche of lies - not skewing, not slanting, verifiable lying. He also hit the ball out of the park in analyzing the motivations behind it.

But leave the analysis for later. Start with the facts. Read the piece, watch the linked video, find other footage if you are so inclined, and see for yourself. Once you have established that the facts he quotes are accurate - and I cannot see how you can fail to reach that conclusion - go back and see who among the sources you read was spreading any of these lies. Ask yourself why they were doing that.

Continue to other incidents that were in contention. Spend the time - see who says what. Start to ask why some people - and some outlets - make sure the POV comes before the facts.

"Bullshitting is different from lying. The American philosopher Harry Frankfurt, who attempted to build a theory of bullshit, explains this clearly. He argues that whereas the liar cares about the truth – their aim is to prevent others from learning it – the bullshitter does not care about the difference between the truth and falsity of their assertions. They just pick ideas out, or make them up, to suit their purpose."

Why leaders who bullshit are more dangerous than those who lie

From Boris Johnson to Donald Trump, a new breed of bullshitting politicians is flourishing.

theconversation.com