Octopus Overlords

Combustible Lemur wrote: ↑Fri Nov 09, 2018 2:27 am The idea that they shouldn't be inconvenienced outside of work is a priviledge based on a fostered culture. I feel they reap what they sow.

This is the part that I'm most conflicted about. Unlike entertainment celebrities, the Carlsons and McConnells of the world are famous AND they seem to view their jobs as making life as hard as possible for as many people as possible, not just in those peoples' professional lives, but the entirety of their lives.

Should they be allowed to go about their lives outside of work without "all this fuss" that is a direct result of their actions in their workplaces? Do you as a politician really get a private life away from the public? Why? Politicians have entire systems in place to make sure they aren't bothered by the public, as seen by many representatives that *never* hold a town hall, that screen their calls, never accept appointments, located in buildings with security guards (bouncers) who will step in for no other reason than because the representative says they should. Somehow "good manners" are supposed to keep the public at bay from their homes?

They have been isolating themselves not only from the consequences of their actions, but from *hearing* about the consequences of their actions. That's not ok, imo. What option does the public have left to make their voice heard? There's more to a democracy than voting every 2/4 years.

As for Carlson, if you spend your professional life shitting on people, people that don't like to be shit on are going to take issue with that.

So I'm against protesting at peoples' homes. I'm definitely against threatening people with physical harm. But I empathize with people who feel marginalized or disenfranchised and have little outlet for voicing those feelings and concerns to people who are (potentially) directly responsible for those feelings.

I feel the same way about those in the poorer red states where unemployment is high, prospects are low, communities are poor, and infrastructure is non-existent. Voting in a con artist who would taken the threadbare clothes off your back if only he could, while demanding that you love him is not the answer either, but I sympathize with their circumstances.

These particular douchebags in these particular circumstances notwithstanding, the idea that politicians or political influencers should be left in peace when they aren't working is one I struggle with.

Remember the movie John Q.? If you push people hard enough/back them into a corner, they tend to push back. That's also why I have major concerns with wealth distribution and social programs. It's part empathy, and part concern for keeping the peace.

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Fri Nov 09, 2018 2:04 am Wait. Did they do something illegal? I assumed they stayed on public property. If they were stupid enough to go onto private property and not leave when told to leave, then yeah, punish away.

Regardless of the protesting near his house (which might only be illegal on the grounds of some sort of intimidation statute or something), I had read somewhere that they smashed his front door in (which is what caused his wife to have to hide). That's what I was referring to (if it happened that way).

His wife and kids aren't on TV being miserable and hateful pieces of shit. They likely don't deserve being harassed. And I'm not even suggesting that Carlson does deserve it. I'm simply saying that I'm not surprised that if you do A, this shitty thing B might happen.

The cracking of the door may or may not have happened. I think that is still up for debate.

Regardless, you don't go on the property. I'm not even comfortable around a private residence. Go to his work and unleash Holy hell.

Punish these protesters, but I’m not even a little bit shocked that his on air behavior had consequences.

I'm not sure why that can be hard for some people to comprehend. The right or wrong of reactions has little to do with not being surprised that they occur.

If you push people hard enough/back them into a corner, they tend to push back.

That's my fear with tampering with Mueller. That a segment of the population will feel cornered and react, right or wrong. On a side note to this side note, I saw protesters along a stop and go highway on the drive home last night. There were about 50 "you cannot fire Mueller", etc... sign bearers in front of the police precinct station that used to also house my city hall. The road is one of three main stop and go arteries between Detroit and "the west side". Sign wavers I'll end up joining if they actually make that move. Though pathetically, only on weekends, and knowing full well it's meaningless.

Regardless, you don't go on the property. I'm not even comfortable around a private residence. Go to his work and unleash Holy hell.

Go out in front of his work and leash Holy Hell anyway.

Here's the problem. Is it ok to protest on Colin Kaepernick's property? He's clearly not a terrible person, but he has unpopular ideas.

If you'd be pissed about that, then you should be pissed about Carlson.

If you're such a free speech person that both are ok, that's fine. I respect that, but I think the line crosses when you get a bullhorn out to yell at someone's house. I was kind of pissed two nights ago when people were shooting off fireworks.

One of the worst things about this episode is the Whataboutism fuel it provides for the next time the alt-right beats up or runs down a decent person.

Holman wrote: ↑Fri Nov 09, 2018 11:21 am One of the worst things about this episode is the Whataboutism fuel it provides for the next time the alt-right beats up or runs down a decent person.

It wouldn't say it's one of the worst but if will be filed and made reference to as a data point from people who make insufferable arguments about how liberals are destroying the country while somehow being oblivious pipebombs being sent to liberal leaders by well a subset of people who think liberals are destroying country...

Holman wrote: ↑Fri Nov 09, 2018 11:21 am One of the worst things about this episode is the Whataboutism fuel it provides for the next time the alt-right beats up or runs down a decent person.

Agreed. An unfair take from all this is that civility is on the decline on the left. Not that it is entirely untrue. However, the reality is it is very asymmetric - as is much across the political realm.

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Fri Nov 09, 2018 11:18 amHere's the problem. Is it ok to protest on Colin Kaepernick's property? He's clearly not a terrible person, but he has unpopular ideas.

If you'd be pissed about that, then you should be pissed about Carlson.

If you're such a free speech person that both are ok, that's fine. I respect that, but I think the line crosses when you get a bullhorn out to yell at someone's house. I was kind of pissed two nights ago when people were shooting off fireworks.

I don't think that it's "ok" to protest on anyone's property. And I'm pretty comfortable with what happened here being illegal under some sort of intimidation statute or what have you.

Where we differ is that I think you are implying through comparison that Tucker Carlson just has unpopular ideas. Tucker Carlson doesn't just have unpopular ideas. Sean Hannity doesn't just have unpopular ideas. Both engage in harmful actions. I would still argue that the way to combat that is not through harassing their families at their homes. But there's a difference between having an unpopular idea like "Police shouldn't be engaging in obvious examples of police brutality against minorities and getting away with it because they are protected by a system that shields bad apples" and what Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson do.

Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson engage in active deception to harm people for their own financial gain. You can only do that for so long before people get fed up and do something about it. Even if I condemn what they do about it, it doesn't change that it's a likely inevitable consequence to their assholery.

Holman wrote: ↑Fri Nov 09, 2018 11:21 am One of the worst things about this episode is the Whataboutism fuel it provides for the next time the alt-right beats up or runs down a decent person.

You do realize that this is a form of “whataboutism” itself, right?

Your tribe did something bad, and you’re saying the worst thing about this bad thing that your tribe did is that the other tribe will use it as an example of your tribe doing bad things when the other tribe inevitably does bad things in the future.

Fucked. Up.

Kurth wrote: ↑Fri Nov 09, 2018 11:53 am

Holman wrote: ↑Fri Nov 09, 2018 11:21 am One of the worst things about this episode is the Whataboutism fuel it provides for the next time the alt-right beats up or runs down a decent person.

You do realize that this is a form of “whataboutism” itself, right?

Your tribe did something bad, and you’re saying the worst thing about this bad thing that your tribe did is that the other tribe will use it as an example of your tribe doing bad things when the other tribe inevitably does bad things in the future.

Fucked. Up.

It is more like pointing out they shouldn't have yelled at a home and pounded on their door because it's bad...plus it'll be used as the justification in people's minds when they choose to run people down with cars or send pipe bombs to major political opponents.

RunningMn9 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 09, 2018 11:51 am

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Fri Nov 09, 2018 11:18 amHere's the problem. Is it ok to protest on Colin Kaepernick's property? He's clearly not a terrible person, but he has unpopular ideas.

If you'd be pissed about that, then you should be pissed about Carlson.

If you're such a free speech person that both are ok, that's fine. I respect that, but I think the line crosses when you get a bullhorn out to yell at someone's house. I was kind of pissed two nights ago when people were shooting off fireworks.

I don't think that it's "ok" to protest on anyone's property. And I'm pretty comfortable with what happened here being illegal under some sort of intimidation statute or what have you.

Where we differ is that I think you are implying through comparison that Tucker Carlson just has unpopular ideas. Tucker Carlson doesn't just have unpopular ideas. Sean Hannity doesn't just have unpopular ideas. Both engage in harmful actions. I would still argue that the way to combat that is not through harassing their families at their homes. But there's a difference between having an unpopular idea like "Police shouldn't be engaging in obvious examples of police brutality against minorities and getting away with it because they are protected by a system that shields bad apples" and what Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson do.

Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson engage in active deception to harm people for their own financial gain. You can only do that for so long before people get fed up and do something about it. Even if I condemn what they do about it, it doesn't change that it's a likely inevitable consequence to their assholery.

I think we are on the same page. I have no problem with protesting against Hannity and Carlson.

But what you are labeling "harmful actions" are a matter of perception. Trump folks think they are telling the truth, and that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is performing harmful actions.

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Fri Nov 09, 2018 12:09 pmBut what you are labeling "harmful actions" are a matter of perception.

I disagree. Intentionally spreading lies are harmful actions, regardless of whether the person being lied to is aware they are being lied to. There is obvious lying, and obvious intent to lie. This isn't a case of Tucker Carlson is just wrong. He is actively engaging in propaganda. I have plenty of neighbors who believe things that are wrong (like actually wrong). There are plenty of things that I believe that are probably wrong (I don't know, because if I did, I wouldn't believe them). Being wrong doesn't make you a Miserable Hate Machine.

Meanwhile, President Daddy is getting angrier:

President Trump on Friday suggested he could pull press credentials from other reporters who don't show him "respect."

The comments come two days after the president suspended the press pass of CNN chief White House correspondent Jim Acosta after a contentious exchange during a news conference.

"I think Jim Acosta is a very unprofessional man," Trump said.

...

Trump also went after April Ryan of American Urban Radio Networks as a "loser" who "doesn't know what the hell she is doing."

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Fri Nov 09, 2018 1:25 pm

"I think Jim Acosta is a very unprofessional man," Trump said.

He went on to say "And trust me. I know unprofessional. Nobu I mean nobody knows very unprofessional like I do. Believe you me. I have been the best at the very unprofessional my entire life. You can't even do the kind of very unprofessional I have to do every day. I could be more very unprofessional but you know I have to do things."

You know, I don't wish folks harm but all that rage that the Toddler has surely isn't good for his health. So the most patriotic thing the media can do is keep asking the hard questions...for the good of the country of course. Oh, and the White House kitchen needs to keep those hamburgers and fries coming.

Tucker Carlson contributes to, and profits from, creating political divisions where the Democrat leadership and CNN receive bombs. I find it hard to feel sympathy for a bomb thrower finally feeling the heat after his actions over the past decade. You reap what you sow.

Kurth wrote: ↑Fri Nov 09, 2018 11:53 am

Holman wrote: ↑Fri Nov 09, 2018 11:21 am One of the worst things about this episode is the Whataboutism fuel it provides for the next time the alt-right beats up or runs down a decent person.

You do realize that this is a form of “whataboutism” itself, right?

Your tribe did something bad, and you’re saying the worst thing about this bad thing that your tribe did is that the other tribe will use it as an example of your tribe doing bad things when the other tribe inevitably does bad things in the future.

My tribe--all the pundits and journos and commentators and regular liberals I respect, insofar as I've seen their opinions--have 100% rejected these tactics and denounced the mob that did it. I do the same.

My side is doing a pretty solid job of insisting that this isn't the path to take.

Kristallnacht survivor — 99 years old — just told @BBCWorld that she sees similarities to the rise of ethnic nationalism in Germany and the US now to attitudes in ‘38. Except for one big difference.

‘A free press.’

I hadn't heard this before, but it seems there are reasons to doubt that the Tucker Carlson protest went as he says it did.

This person nails my feelings on the matter.



I assumed the reporting on it was from reporters, who did more than regurgitate Carson's version.

Geezus K-rist it's getting difficult to know what the truth is these days.

Reading the tweet thread, there is mostly a reference to a police report, and then a whole bunch of supposition based on what's not in the police report. Whether her conclusions are correct or not, assuming the report does not contain any of the information Carlson is spewing, I'm at least inclined to believe that he is exaggerating the extent that his wife was terrified, or that the door was being attacked.

I'm sure there's a perfectly good reason as to why Matt Drudge would delete his entire Twitter account history.

impending indictment?

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Mon Nov 12, 2018 5:31 pm I'm sure there's a perfectly good reason as to why Matt Drudge would delete his entire Twitter account history.

To the internet!

I read that Drudge periodically deletes all of his tweets, but I have no confirmation that this is true.

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Mon Nov 12, 2018 7:23 pm

To the internet!

Damn it, I got stuck in my own feedback cycle and never did get to the internet. Looking now.

Edit: Ok, google search hits included people talking about this same exact thing years ago. Whether it's the same or different this time, that was enough for me to lose interest because it seems to be a regular thing, rather than some sort of momentous breaking news.

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Mon Nov 12, 2018 5:31 pm I'm sure there's a perfectly good reason as to why Matt Drudge would delete his entire Twitter account history.

I'm told that (purely by coincidence) neither Fox News nor Wikileaks has tweeted since 8 Nov (and the National Enquirer hasn't tweeted since 9 Nov), and that the tinfoil hat brigades are hard at work to establish a connection to Drudge's self-purge.

ImLawBoy wrote: ↑Mon Nov 12, 2018 11:48 pm I read that Drudge periodically deletes all of his tweets, but I have no confirmation that this is true.

I googled it yesterday and it does look like he's done exactly that multiple times.

Max Peck wrote: ↑Tue Nov 13, 2018 12:54 pmI'm told that (purely by coincidence) neither Fox News nor Wikileaks has tweeted since 8 Nov (and the National Enquirer hasn't tweeted since 9 Nov), and that the tinfoil hat brigades are hard at work to establish a connection to Drudge's self-purge.

Did they also mention Rupert Murdoch's meeting with Mitch McConnell in D.C. last Thursday?

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Tue Nov 13, 2018 3:14 pm

Max Peck wrote: ↑Tue Nov 13, 2018 12:54 pmI'm told that (purely by coincidence) neither Fox News nor Wikileaks has tweeted since 8 Nov (and the National Enquirer hasn't tweeted since 9 Nov), and that the tinfoil hat brigades are hard at work to establish a connection to Drudge's self-purge.

Did they also mention Rupert Murdoch's meeting with Mitch McConnell in D.C. last Thursday?

beep! beep! beep!

Back the bus up. What?

In a span of ~24 hours after the midterm elections, Fox News twitter goes silent, Sessions is fired and Rupert Murdoch is meeting with Mitch McConnell. I'm sure it's all just a really strange string of coincidences.

White House: We were just kidding about the whole "Jim Acosta lost his credentials because he assaulted someone" thing. Turns out we just don't like him. We're all cool now, right?

Related?

CNN filed a lawsuit against the Trump Administration this morning in DC District Court. It demands the return of the White House credentials of CNN’s Chief White House correspondent, Jim Acosta. The wrongful revocation of these credentials violates CNN and Acosta’s First Amendment rights of freedom of the press, and their Fifth Amendment rights to due process. We have asked this court for an immediate restraining order requiring the pass be returned to Jim, and will seek permanent relief as part of this process. While the suit is specific to CNN and Acosta, this could have happened to anyone. If left unchallenged, the actions of the White House would create a dangerous chilling effect for any journalist who covers our elected officials.

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Tue Nov 13, 2018 3:25 pm Related?

Presumably. The WH statement references the lawsuit in its opening paragraph.

Someday I'll be able to read embedded Tweets on OO.

Battening down the hatches in anticipation of indictments? Perhaps someone started listening to their lawyers.

Zarathud wrote: ↑Tue Nov 13, 2018 3:35 pm Battening down the hatches in anticipation of indictments? Perhaps someone started listening to their lawyers.

Or even just ours.

So far, the courts have not messed around when it comes to the first amendment. Just as importantly, they have shown no signs of simply accepting the paper thin rationalizations of those violating first amendment rights.

Changing the reasoning for the withdrawal is not going to fool the courts if the past is any indicator. Not even for the WH or Drumpf. That makes me feel warm inside.

That they altered their story is absolutely freaking awesome, as it heavily implies that not only did they do it for the first reason given, they understand that they weren't allowed to do it for the first reason. And the courts should and will recognize that. The WH understands that their previous statements are still public record, right? I mean, right? Drumpf might be delusional about reality but the rest must be aware...right?

Do I expect anything to come of this besides Acosta getting his pass back? No. In fact I assume that will happen before the lawsuit makes any progress. But as people pointed out to me, baby steps are still steps in the right direction. The WH will be forced in front of the public to do something they have insisted they would not do because they are in the right. The court would find that they were not. The WH may never admit in public what the court would find them guilty of, but they will be forced to act because they are wrong, and that's enough for now.

And can I just say how petty it is it imply that Acosta is a unique snowflake for suing over having his first amendment rights violated? I mean, geezus k-rist. You're the defender of the constitution for God's sake. How many ways can you find to not do your freakin' job?

Acosta's behaviour was both appropriate and professional when confronted by a secretive and evasive administration. That's his JOB. Doing your job is the very definition of professional. The journalists aren't there to just regurgitate WH press statements.

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Tue Nov 13, 2018 3:21 pm

In a span of ~24 hours after the midterm elections, Fox News twitter goes silent, Sessions is fired and Rupert Murdoch is meeting with Mitch McConnell. I'm sure it's all just a really strange string of coincidences.

Trying but failing to understand what justification Murdoch could have to privately get the ear of a Kentucky Senator I end up here

also in that time frame

Is that the same Jerome Corsi that used to be on Coast to Coast AM all the time? What the hell, he's crazy.