Active Users:1101 Time:22/11/2024 06:14:32 PM
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules
Hmm... How does one argue against nonsense? - Edit 1

Before modification by entyti at 13/01/2023 01:08:24 PM


Scintillation. "From source X, hence-" brilliant argument. Really swayed me there.

I am not trying to convince you of anything. It is my opinion that you have your head so far up the Democrats' puppet hole that such a feet is impossible. For the record, ad homimem is a commonly used tactic (including in this article), so I assumed it was fair game.


If these are the seeds of tyranny, this is the best response you can come up to it? Have the balls to actually respond to what the article says, or quit blathering about fascism. If you truly fear this is fascism, you're a step removed from active support of it by just letting it lie unexamined.

Alright Fio, challenge accepted.


As we close in on the second anniversary of Jan. 6, it’s easy to fall prey to the idea that it was all a historical event, blessedly behind us. It’s even tempting to celebrate the dozens of ways in which the “system held.” We can laud the heroics of the Capitol Police, the courage and steadiness of Nancy Pelosi, the actions of judges and state election officials who insured that specious claims of election fraud and “Stop the Steal” never garnered sufficient traction to become a legal movement with enough legitimacy to move anything more than a mob of violent racists and wackos and conspiracy theorists (and Ginni Thomas) to action.

The above is nothing more than baseless rhetoric designed to paint the events of Jan 6th as some major tragedy for the US. It sloppily meanders through the usual tricks, painting the morons as heroes, the protesters as racists and conspiracy theorists, and leaning on the narrative that the highlight reel of Protests Gone Bad was in fact an attempted insurrection. "Oh, if not for the brave actions of the Capitol Police, and Nancy Pelosi!" ( ) Jesus, the inversion here, attributing hero status to the woman responsible for the underfit security detail and police who were responsible for the one direct casualty of that day

Anyway, an honest look at J6 is it was a protest that was allowed to get out of hand so bad actors could manufacture news to polarize the population. Since you certainly don't agree with me on this point, and since it's not really relevant, I'll move on.


Set against all that triumphalist mythmaking, it’s similarly easy to watch what’s unfolding in the Republican House leadership contest with glee. Watching Kevin McCarthy being ritually humiliated in round after round of voting—especially as payback for his refusal to take the events of two years ago this week as a sober warning—is schadenfreude on skates. It’s tempting to want to sit back and enjoy watching the chaos muppetry cave in on itself for the second straight day, as a political party that can no longer make claims to be serious, or to have serious leadership, is left flopping on the beaches for the delectation of us all.

Probably the highlight of the article. I did enjoy the shitshow. Though the author can't help but inject stupidity into the narrative, naming the Republican Party as no longer able to claim they are serious. First of all, if they are a joke, then what does that make the party of John Fetterman, Kamala Harris and Joe Biden? More importantly, it belittles the movement represented by McCarthy's failure to slide in to his role as assigned by the unelected interests of the Republican Party. This should be viewed as a win for all. Instead it is cast down as some infantile attempt to take control away from the adults in the room, as we shall see in the coming paragraphs.


Except, of course, the events of Jan. 6, 2021 and Jan. 3–? of 2023 are not at all unrelated. Nor are they sequential points along a continuum that is leading us to a better place. Instead, they represent the locomotive and the caboose of the same train: Each is a point along a terrifying line of governmental failure; each is a subversion of the principles of lawful transition of power. But certainly they are moving in the same direction, and there should be no joy found in watching the present and past pancaking back on itself. In many ways, the events of this week should be as frightening to us as the events of two years past, if not more so. This, too, is an insurrection. That it’s coming—quite literally—from inside the House in 2023 should no more be grounds for popcorn and selfies from Democrats than the Capitol insurrection was in 2021. This is a profoundly serious systems failure, Trumpism without the relative coherence of Trump, and a triumph of nihilist anti-government fan fiction. And this go-round, those forces have a vote that is big enough to gum up the entire operation.

Here's where the author connects J6 to 10 rounds of McCarthy. And the author is not wrong to associate the two events. It is true that many of the opposition were people outside of the Republican Party who benefited from the galvanization of the party due to the success of Trump. But, even buying the bullshit narrative that J6 was an insurrection, claiming voting no for McCarthy is not even remotely on that level. Prima Facia, it is not, simply on the grounds that each vote was performed legally. You can call it a power grab, but an insurrection it is not.

Anyway, this is getting long in the tooth, so skipping to the main point (such as it is)...


Governance is not the point, it’s the enemy. Government is not the point, it’s the enemy. In 2021, that was on display in what we could all recognize as violence and threats of bodily harm. In 2023, it’s being done with speeches and backroom negotiations and the stand-up-sit-down whack-a-mole energy of a Monty Python sketch. Those chairs they are seeking? It’s not to do anything with them, beyond further themselves. None of it will lead to a better, healthier, more functional or stable government, even if the week doesn’t end with feces smeared on the walls.

And here we have the assertion that government is inherently good, and opposing it is evil and fueled by inciting chaos. To such an extent that the author sides with establishment Republicans over the MAGA party. What are they going to do? the author can't say, but it is definitely self-serving and destructive. Trust her, she doesn't need receipts. Didn't she already call them racists and conspiracy theorists?

Government is not the point. The point is to have a country where people can live peacefully and pursue their happiness with as much freedom as possible. And despite my personal beliefs that it is, in fact, the enemy, I will say government can be a tool to protect those freedoms, by policing thieves and murderers, and raising armies to defend against other countries. But of course, this is not only what government is. It is a source of power, and power is often associated with a human failing or two, if I recall. And that failing manifests in many ways, but a common one is the marriage of corrupt politicians and greedy corporate lobbyists legislating mutual wealth at the expense of the population. That combination of corruption and greed is an inevitability of time, and the longer something is around, the more likely this is to be the case.

Yet the article implies the opposite. Trust the establishment, don't trust the new face in the room. Because... Trump, racist, etc etc

This article does nothing but pluck emotional strings, paint strawmen and preach to hate the other. The aim is to defend the corrupt establishment, which is a fascistic union of one two-headed dinosaur and the Neo House of Merchants.

And that's why Slate is shit.

Carlin said it best

Return to message