Capitol Hearings: Competing Narratives

[hollodero]

(07-29-2021, 12:27 PM)Dill Wrote: I agree with this up to the last statement.

I'd say that storming the Capitol put in play a significant fraction of voters who were right or leaning right among "independents" and some even in the Trump camp. Hence the desperation to fix the narrative that this is just another witch hunt to get Trump and smear all Trump voters/sympathizers. More Dem theater.

I doubt the term "significant", but overall that seems a fair point to me. It is very well possible that some more conservative leaning folks changed their view in the light of a dangerous, albeit also clumsy and stupid insurrection attempt. Liz Cheney apparently did, for one.
What I however severely doubt is that the upcoming hearings will change any minds at this point in time.

(07-29-2021, 12:27 PM)Dill Wrote: PS I wasn't suggesting Jordan be "pinned" in some kind of logical contradiction. Rather the shrill tone and ham-fisted gas lighting would daily tend to define the Trump defense across the different media spheres--in contrast with very strong visual evidence and the words of the Republican leadership immediately after the breach. 

Yeah well, possibly putting the immediate reactions aside that was also true during two impeachments and in many other instances. It always was facts against shrillness.

[hollodero]

(07-28-2021, 05:03 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It's nice to see Democrats caring about law enforcement for a change.  And of course this was motivated by white supremacy, white supremacy is responsible for everything bad that happens in this country and all white people should feel responsible for it.  As far as an insurrection, that's a huge stretch.  After all, no one in the crowd had an F-15 or a nuclear weapon.

No F-15, sure. But people were storming the Capitol with the clear goal of preventing the certification of an election to put the loser in power instead. Some additionally wanted to hang Mike Pence and probably some more. Imho, a Capitol storming with these intentions and a noose are enough to justify the term insurrection.
The event probably wasn't a real threat to democracy. But hearing all those Republicans calling it just fine and a tourist visit imho adds some danger to it after the deed.

As for the rest and your overall comments about police and rhetorics, I more and more sympathize with your stance on this one. (I'm not touching the gun issue :) )

(07-28-2021, 05:03 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I hope anyone who actively encouraged this incident is held responsible.  And by actively encouraging them I don't mean repeating the "big lie", I mean telling people to storm the capitol or assisting them in doing so.

Just curious, would that include Donald Trump?

(07-28-2021, 05:03 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: But let's also be real about this, Pelosi is using these hearings as much for political theatre as she is about getting to the truth, hence her appointment of Cheney.

Well, Pelosi is not above party lines and I wouldn't expect her to be. That's not how her role is defined; she's a democrat leader, after all, she's bound to look for her own party's best interests. In her defense, she did also try to go another route first, it were Republicans that refused bipartisanship in the first place. Hence the less bipartisan way with these hearings (or committee or whatever that now is). The only other thing she could have done would have been letting the issue go completely, and that imho would be a very wrong way to go about this. I also would not hold the appointment of Cheney and this Adam Whatshisname guy against her in any way. It's the most bipartisan thing she could do. Appointing other Republicans who are (as far as I can tell) all fully committed to Trump, even while said Trump is fully committed to feeling the love of the Capitol stormers, would be pointless.

[Dill]

(07-29-2021, 01:10 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah well, possibly putting the immediate reactions aside that was also true during two impeachments and in many other instances. It always was facts against shrillness.

I do see a contrast here with the impeachments, though.

Remember, the first one hung on explaining some basics of diplomacy. 

Also, the phone call lent itself to gaslighting, as did some of Trump's comments inciting the insurrection. 

I think that in all these cases, the counter narrative is critical. The first impeachment was more susceptible to that than the second, or the current hearings. 

The goal is to ultimately make this about Trump hate, and a "leftist" effort to destroy Trump's good name and all the good work he has done for the country so he cannot come back n 2024 and finish it. 

Making it about Trump hate requires systematically converting points against Trump and his party into false equivalences, designed first to create "no difference" between Dem and Repubs and then to cast any push for accountability as a double standard--Dems were "against" the police back when and no they are "for" police when it suits them. Biden "supported" Antifa; Harris supported "rioters"; "violence" on "both sides" but more died in the Floyd riots than at the Capitol, etc. Now suddenly Dems want accountability. 

[Vas Deferens]

(07-29-2021, 11:52 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: A larger percentage of local governments have gone back on "defund the police" than those who advocated it at a national level.  I thought that was clear, I guess not.

Apologies, reread and get it now. 


I still think saying that "At the county and city level the Democratic party 100% embraced the "defund the police" movement and in many places continue to do so." is hyperbolic.  The 20 or so cities encompassed in your citations are not "100%", and many of those cities are not 'defunding the police', but incorporating mental health and other services into responses. 

I get why this topic 'rankles' you (great use btw), but there are many on the left that abhor the the term 'defund the police' and merely want an expansion of social services and programs that have been decimated by tax cuts over the years.

[hollodero]

(07-29-2021, 01:43 PM)Dill Wrote: I do see a contrast here with the impeachments, though.

Remember, the first one hung on explaining some basics of diplomacy. 

Also, the phone call lent itself to gaslighting, as did some of Trump's comments inciting the insurrection. 

I think that in all these cases, the counter narrative is critical. The first impeachment was more susceptible to that than the second, or the current hearings. 

The goal is to ultimately make this about Trump hate, and a "leftist" effort to destroy Trump's good name and all the good work he has done for the country so he cannot come back n 2024 and finish it. 

Making it about Trump hate requires systematically converting points against Trump and his party into false equivalences, designed first to create "no difference" between Dem and Repubs and then to cast any push for accountability as a double standard--Dems were "against" the police back when and no they are "for" police when it suits them. Biden "supported" Antifa; Harris supported "rioters"; "violence" on "both sides" but more died in the Floyd riots than at the Capitol, etc. Now suddenly Dems want accountability. 

Well, as for the bolded, there we differ again. I think the counter narrative does not really matter at all. I guess most people that were pro Trump in the first place would accept any counternarrative that comes along, and if it were that all Democrats are disguised aliens or sent by satan. They just need something to say, and how much sense it makes isn't all that important, as long as the group goes along. It isn't so much about the issue in the first place - which goes indeed for both sides, actually. Liberals don't care all that much about double standards either if it suits them not to. (That I think one side is way worse goes without saying, for I said it so often.)

I also never noticed that people mind too much about glaring double standards or false equivalencies or anything of that matter. Those that are pro conservatives stay pro conservatives, and even those that define their attitude by saying "both sides are equally bad" stay on that course. And if Trump shot someone on the streets, then they would believe in Clintoncides to even out the score. These stances all became too defining for many people's identities to just rethink them or throw them overboard because a false equivalency comes along. Or a hundred.

Btw. for me, seldomly was something so clear-cut than the first impeachment. It wasn't really about diplomacy that much. As I saw it, it was about a president blocking Congress-approved funds to pressure a country fighting a common foe into producing made-up charges against a domestic opponent. One does not need to be versed in diplomacy to know that this is wrong (or that forcing an ambassador out by smear campaigns from Giuliani and all that stuff that went along with it was wrong). The commen counternarratives hardly touched the case at hand at all and went along the lines of "Adam Schiff wants nude pictures of Trump" and lots of other stuff that was equally asinine (the hearings are held secretly! Scandal! Oh no, the hearings are a public theater! Scandal! Republicans are not allowed to speak! and whatnot) and made little sense. Oh yeah, outing the whistleblower was important. All bad, pointless counternarratives. It did not matter.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-29-2021, 01:33 PM)hollodero Wrote: No F-15, sure. But people were storming the Capitol with the clear goal of preventing the certification of an election to put the loser in power instead. Some additionally wanted to hang Mike Pence and probably some more. Imho, a Capitol storming with these intentions and a noose are enough to justify the term insurrection.
The event probably wasn't a real threat to democracy. But hearing all those Republicans calling it just fine and a tourist visit imho adds some danger to it after the deed.

Yes, I agree that many in the GOP are minimizing far beyond the level of even basic common sense.  Much like Pelosi, they realize how politically damaging the perception of the GOP fomenting an "insurrection" would be.

Quote:As for the rest and your overall comments about police and rhetorics, I more and more sympathize with your stance on this one. (I'm not touching the gun issue :) )

Completely understandable.  I would ask why you find my position on this more sympathetic as time goes on?  As someone living in Europe I'd be very interested in your take on that topic.

Quote:Just curious, would that include Donald Trump?

Absolutely, with one caveat.  To hold Trump responsible in any meaningful way would take an absolute smoking gun.  I don't mean this in the way of assigning blame, I'm talking about meaningful consequences.  The reason being is that without a smoking gun you're going to stir up a huge backlash, and it could very well be far worse than what we saw on 01/06 (06/01 for you ;P).  There are certainly hard core Trump supporters who won't believe any evidence provided that implicates Trump.  But there is a far larger group that could be swayed by such irrefutable evidence.  However, without that evidence you're opening a Pandora's box that I don't think could be closed.

Quote:Well, Pelosi is not above party lines and I wouldn't expect her to be. That's not how her role is defined; she's a democrat leader, after all, she's bound to look for her own party's best interests. In her defense, she did also try to go another route first, it were Republicans that refused bipartisanship in the first place. Hence the less bipartisan way with these hearings (or committee or whatever that now is). The only other thing she could have done would have been letting the issue go completely, and that imho would be a very wrong way to go about this. I also would not hold the appointment of Cheney and this Adam Whatshisname guy against her in any way. It's the most bipartisan thing she could do. Appointing other Republicans who are (as far as I can tell) all fully committed to Trump, even while said Trump is fully committed to feeling the love of the Capitol stormers, would be pointless.

You give Pelosi far more benefit of the doubt than I ever would, but I understand your point.

(07-29-2021, 02:52 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: Apologies, reread and get it now.

  

No apologies necessary, I reread it as well and in text it's not as clear as if I was vocalizing the point.

Quote:I still think saying that "At the county and city level the Democratic party 100% embraced the "defund the police" movement and in many places continue to do so." is hyperbolic.  The 20 or so cities encompassed in your citations are not "100%", and many of those cities are not 'defunding the police', but incorporating mental health and other services into responses. 

Yes, I have to remind myself not to deal in absolutes, it's far harder on the internet than in real life.  That being said, I think you are drastically understating the prevalence of this sentiment in many/most Dem lead cities.  You are also giving far more credence to this "shifting" of funds then I think should be done.  I've experienced the rhetoric first hand.  I have friends in Seattle, Portland, the bay area and Austin who have experienced the same thing.  You are also minimizing, though I believe unintentionally, the real vilification of law enforcement from these same groups.  You don't have to take away our funding to make us miserable.  The atmosphere these politicians have helped foster is toxic beyond anything I thought possible.  Although I'm sure my brethren from the 60's would have a thing or two to talk to me about on that subject.

Quote:I get why this topic 'rankles' you (great use btw), but there are many on the left that abhor the the term 'defund the police' and merely want an expansion of social services and programs that have been decimated by tax cuts over the years.

Many?  I'll allow for that, but they don't seem to be very vocal, at least not on a level that makes any difference.  Trust me, LEO's are all for social services, 100% of them (absolutes again   ) would prefer to never answer a DV service call again in their life.  But, as stated above, calls for defunding have gone hand in hand with vilification.  Honestly, I'd love to take you out into the field and experience the current atmosphere first hand.  I can virtually guarantee you that you'd be aghast at the shit LEO's have to deal with now.

[GMDino]

(07-29-2021, 02:52 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: Apologies, reread and get it now. 


I still think saying that "At the county and city level the Democratic party 100% embraced the "defund the police" movement and in many places continue to do so." is hyperbolic.  The 20 or so cities encompassed in your citations are not "100%", and many of those cities are not 'defunding the police', but incorporating mental health and other services into responses. 

I get why this topic 'rankles' you (great use btw), but there are many on the left that abhor the the term 'defund the police' and merely want an expansion of social services and programs that have been decimated by tax cuts over the years.

[BigPapaKain]

(07-30-2021, 09:53 AM)GMDino Wrote:

Just another feather in the hat of lies being worn by the Republican party.

[Dill]

(07-30-2021, 09:53 AM)GMDino Wrote:

The D is back!! 

[hollodero]

(07-29-2021, 07:01 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yes, I agree that many in the GOP are minimizing far beyond the level of even basic common sense.  Much like Pelosi, they realize how politically damaging the perception of the GOP fomenting an "insurrection" would be.

Yeah well, the GOP behaviour increases said perception for me. That isn't helped by the selection of people the party chooses to censure.

(07-29-2021, 07:01 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Completely understandable.  I would ask why you find my position on this more sympathetic as time goes on? As someone living in Europe I'd be very interested in your take on that topic.

That is difficult to answer fully. Policy-wise, it's probably to some extent you, or your takes and the many links you provided. Eg. showing that my initial perception how "defund the police" was well-intentioned and just incredibly badly phrased isn't that universally true. Right now, it rather seems as if the term was chosen intentionally to serve/include the more radical takes on the left on this.
Sure enough, I got more aware how radical many takes are, that these radical views get more and more mainstreamed. Examples for that are many, from youtubers (I do not follow youtubers) and especially to the media narratives (I do follow the media). Police is often getting villified beyond reason, and gross exaggerations are quite common.
For sure though, my perspective is severely hampered, as you yourself rightfully pointed out. I am a media animal mostly, I mainly see the hysteria there. Like activists shouting over every reasonable person making incendiary claims of black people being chased like animals and stupid stuff like that - and apparently no one daring to tell these voices to stop radicalizing people by saying such unhelpful nonsense.

[Regarding youtube, as some anecdotal story, I did come across a guy who was asked about someone's relative who is police, and how to handle said relative, who apparently just by being police has to be a bad, repressive, racist and violent person. Said youtuber tried the "maybe not every policeman is inherently bad" defense and got smoked in the chat by his left-leaning followership for it. This is imho just crazy, but from my multiple impressions on multiple outlets seeing all police as inherently fascist (or whatever) seems way more common place than I initially could imagine.]

My take as an European is even more complicated to describe. For one, even in Europe I live in a blessed country regarding crime in general. Our crime rate is particularly low. Most people here are law-abiding and usually respect authorities. And also most residents, including criminal ones, don't carry deadly weapons around. Therefore, being a policeman in Austria is usually, while still dangerous at times for sure, not a constantly life-threatening tenure. This is quite different in other places of Europe of course, eg. in the southern parts of Italy. For my part, whoever chooses to be a policeman there is some kind of hero that risks his life for the community (or is out for bribes).
In the US, it's probably closer to that situation than to the tranquility of my country. That factors into my perception a lot, for my take has to take this into account. That being said, many people here consider US-American cops and US-American police encounters as frightening, starting from traffic stops, but generally including the power American cops seem to possess (that, as far as I can tell, often go way further than what our police is allowed to do). Then again, being police in America is definitely way more dangerous and threatening, and for that reason alone it's clear that methods differ, even though some methods appear scary and overpowered (eg at what point it's ok to gun someone down).
Generally, like many people I do see a certain problematic tendency in America regarding police and racism. On the one hand, I might understand some forms of racism. Eg. if I had the task to find as many drugs or illegal weapons as possible on the streets, I sure would apply implicit racial profiling (eg. search more young black people than old white people) to fulfil that task. Not because I'm racist, but because that just logically increases my chances. Thoughts and realities like this do play a role, and I get more aware of that in time and tend to be less idealistic - same goes for use of lethal force (not least your imho well-argued explanations changed my mind on that). The accumulation of police brutality towards black people is still hard to negate though, imho. I still see serious issues there. But first and foremost, I see an incredibly dishonest and exaggerated debate about this, from both sides, about this and many other things really. Eg. regarding the mostly peaceful protests, a conservative often goes full "all protesters bad, all police good" and laughs about the mostly peaceful part, and a more leftist person tends to go the "all protesters good, all police bad" route and points to the peacefulness of protesters and the brutality of police, and both sides dig in and throw bad faith arguments at each other. I'd think the truth would lay somewhere in the middle, there's good and bad on both sides and it varies from specific instance to specific instance, but that hardly is a position anyone with a distinct political leaning would back up apparently.

Lastly and in general, I am happy police exists, police makes communities work and protects them, police risk their own well-being to keep them safe, I rather consider them heroes than villains and I find it incomprehensible to see it any other way. I follow the "a few bad apples" narrative rather than the "it's an inherently racist/fascist/badist organisation" narrative. I'm not so sure how many other people still do, in the US and in Europe (we tend to take over liberal American views from time to time, eg. we have black lives matter protests even though we hardly have any blacks here) and I am especially unsure if this take isn't rather suited to earn disagreement from both sides of the american spectrum.

I hope I answered your question in a crucially overboarding manner. :)

[Au165]

“Just say it was corrupt and leave the rest to me and R. Congressman”

That was Donald Trump talking to the DoJ. That sure looks like a conspiracy to overturn a legal election. As more information comes out it is very clear why Republicans did not really want a commission, by Donald Trump’s own words they were co-conspirators.

[BigPapaKain]

(07-30-2021, 07:27 PM)Au165 Wrote: “Just say it was corrupt and leave the rest to me and R. Congressman”

That was Donald Trump talking to the DoJ. That sure looks like a conspiracy to overturn a legal election. As more information comes out it is very clear why Republicans did not really want a commission, by Donald Trump’s own words they were co-conspirators.

I am shocked. Shocked, I say.

[CarolinaBengalFanGuy]

(07-29-2021, 11:52 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: A larger percentage of local governments have gone back on "defund the police" than those who advocated it at a national level.  I thought that was clear, I guess not.




Oh man, easily.

https://crosscut.com/news/2021/06/police-funding-seattle-council-members-worry-theyre-losing-momentum

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/portland-ore-leaders-walk-tightrope-between-calls-defund-police-escalating-n1272196

https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2021/06/24/oakland-city-council-votes-defund-police-stripping-17-million-department-budget/

https://www.kqed.org/news/11862094/sf-mayor-breed-unveils-plan-for-reinvesting-120-million-from-police-into-black-communities

https://www.npr.org/2021/07/22/1019413198/minneapolis-policing-is-caught-between-the-defund-movement-and-violent-crimes-ri

https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrzejewski/2021/07/20/democratic-mayors-defunded-their-police-while-spending-millions-on-their-own-police-protection/?sh=129e50fed86b

https://missouriindependent.com/2021/07/20/st-louis-mayor-tishaura-jones-reflects-on-success-challenges-of-first-100-days/

https://www.thecentersquare.com/texas/interim-chief-austin-police-department-in-dire-crisis-after-defunding/article_f1cf3332-e8b2-11eb-a76c-afc3b5f2ca55.html

I see you did not cite Fox News

[BigPapaKain]

(07-31-2021, 04:28 AM)CarolinaBengalFanGuy Wrote: I see you did not cite Fox News

The same Fox News that whose lawyers have stated that no sane person would take what is said on their networks seriously? That Fox News?

[Dill]

(07-29-2021, 03:17 PM)hollodero Wrote: Well, as for the bolded, there we differ again. I think the counter narrative does not really matter at all. I guess most people that were pro Trump in the first place would accept any counternarrative that comes along, and if it were that all Democrats are disguised aliens or sent by satan. They just need something to say, and how much sense it makes isn't all that important, as long as the group goes along. It isn't so much about the issue in the first place - which goes indeed for both sides, actually. Liberals don't care all that much about double standards either if it suits them not to. (That I think one side is way worse goes without saying, for I said it so often.)

The bolded speaks to an implied premise of this thread, which is that counter narratives, as disinformation campaigns, are indeed critical maintaining effective right wing opposition to Dems--especially where Trump's reputation and viability as a candidate are on the dock.
 
I hold this view in part on historical grounds. The rise of RWM as a national force via talk radio in the '80s and Fox in the '90s has "mainstreamed" what were once fringe right views, along with a style of denunciation which makes debate and compromise difficult. The consistent message since then, the backbone of the counternarrative, has been to denounce the MSM as "biased" and to claim "journalism is dead," leaving RWM the trusted alternative. That is a primary factor in all of the disinformation campaigns around Hillary, the Russia investigation, the impeachments, COVID guidelines, and the Big Lie, which are “sub”counter narratives under that general umbrella, which now spans three decades.
 
Thus people weren't somehow just pro-Trump in 2016 because the proportion of conservatives amenable to his style have always been roughly the same proportion of the electorate with the same levels of anger, regardless of information sources and counter-liberal narratives. The increase in proportion since 1988 is a measurable change, and does not reflect "pro-conservatives just remaining pro-conservative," regardless of alternative news/counter-liberal narratives. RWM has both expanded the US Right and, especially over the last four years, amplified the anger and distrust it creates itself, and changed the meaning of “pro-conservative” while encouraging uncritical acceptance of its counternarratives to make sense of what is "really" happening in "the swamp." 
 
One consequence of this rise of RWM has been high levels of disinformation, especially evident since the Iraq War. The current most consequential manifestation of this is the refusal of tens of millions to get vaccinated during a pandemic in which over 600,000 Americans have already died. Had Trump called COVID the "DEM virus" and Hannity called it a really existing threat to limit our economic freedom and make us more dependent on government and Tucker Carlson urged listeners to fight back by getting the vaccinated with the amazingly rapid vaccine development led by Trump, surely we'd be reaching herd immunity by now. But we are not, precisely because of a counter-narrative which goes the other direction--COVID is largely a hoax designed to expand gov. power, a pretext for Dem/gov control of our personal lives. You fight that by not wearing masks and not getting vaccinated. There has always been an inconsequential group of anti-vaxxers in the US since the 50s, but it is consequential now, precisely because of this orchestrated counter narrative, currently adjusting to the new CDC guidelines. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/missouri-public-health-official-abused-by-hostile-crowd-over-support-for-mask-mandate
 
If I understand you, Hollo, you disagree with this view. You’ll may grant that there are counter-narratives as described, but you don’t agree that they make a difference, don’t “maintain” disinformation at the level needed to keep Trump a dangerous possibility in 2024. You also might not agree that the counter-narratives are the counter-logical MIRROR IMAGES of whatever scandal they are constructed to address. I.e., it absolutely does matter that it is about “the issue” and “makes sense” as rebuttal. E.g., you run up the Uranium One scandal against Russiagate, not the 2nd Impeachment. And Dr. Fauci against COVID, not 1/6.

My position: it’s because the counter narratives are effective that “nothing happens” and when nothing happens, you think the counter-narratives are therefore ineffective and “don’t matter.” 

[Dill]

(07-29-2021, 03:17 PM)hollodero Wrote: I also never noticed that people mind too much about glaring double standards or false equivalencies or anything of that matter. Those that are pro conservatives stay pro conservatives, and even those that define their attitude by saying "both sides are equally bad" stay on that course. And if Trump shot someone on the streets, then they would believe in Clintoncides to even out the score. These stances all became too defining for many people's identities to just rethink them or throw them overboard because a false equivalency comes along. Or a hundred.

Cordial disagreement with the bolded: Roy Moore and Al Franken are out of politics because “glaring double standards” do matter. The allegation of such is a primary driver of electorate anger, especially on the right. I’d say EVERYONE minds.

People have become more accepting of double standards in case of their own people, especially on the Right,* in part because they believe the other side “gets away with it,”** and if they are not playing by the rules we cannot either. It’s no accident that Hannity, Ingraham and Tucker hammer the “liberal hypocrisy” point across every segment every night of their programs.
 
And from where/whence do they continue to receive their information about Clintoncides, which are part of the larger anti-liberal counternarrative which began in the 80s? You reference here a counter-narrative, yes, a faux scandal to balance out a very real one. Your shooting example is only hypothetical at the moment—but the Clintoncide counter-narrative is already there, a false equivalence ready for use.
 
Yes, these stances become "all too defining for many people's identities to just rethink them or throw them overboard," and yes, you have to create a total worldview before the glaring double standards can be embraced and normalized.  But that certainly doesn’t mean the factual basis of each stance is equally factual. (I know you agree with me on that.) A stance based on alternative facts requires constant maintenance, and the creation of false equivalences is a priority method for achieving that, as is the undermining of tradition journalistic authority to the point that Trump becomes more trustworthy than the journalism-is-dead NYT. 

But if I understand you, you are saying people, "pro-conservatives," would just keep their views and support for Trump, somehow, with or without the equivalences and counter-narratives? Even if the MSM were not "biased" and the Clintons were not "corrupt" and there wasn't a "deep state" out to get Trump and a failed FBI coup and there hadn't been riots last summer, even near the White House? 
 
*Hillary, Biden and AOC cannot shoot someone on 5th avenue and count on continued support from the Dem base. Same if they steer an insurrection to the Capitol or pay off a porn star.
 
**Remember all of the Clinton scandals which ended with no indictments, not to mention a set of Benghazi hearings targeting Hillary. This did not signal the scandals were bogus, but that “the establishment” always got Hillary off. One standard for the Clintons, another for everyone else. Thus ANGER! If Hillary always got off for her crimes then Trump should too.

[Dill]

(07-29-2021, 03:17 PM)hollodero Wrote: Btw. for me, seldomly was something so clear-cut than the first impeachment. It wasn't really about diplomacy that much. As I saw it, it was about a president blocking Congress-approved funds to pressure a country fighting a common foe into producing made-up charges against a domestic opponent. One does not need to be versed in diplomacy to know that this is wrong (or that forcing an ambassador out by smear campaigns from Giuliani and all that stuff that went along with it was wrong). The commen counternarratives hardly touched the case at hand at all and went along the lines of "Adam Schiff wants nude pictures of Trump" and lots of other stuff that was equally asinine (the hearings are held secretly! Scandal! Oh no, the hearings are a public theater! Scandal! Republicans are not allowed to speak! and whatnot) and made little sense. Oh yeah, outing the whistleblower was important. All bad, pointless counternarratives. It did not matter.

Clear-cut for you. But not for the RWM audience already "wise" to how the MSM would stop at nothing to take down Trump. 

I should have used the term "foreign policy" rather than diplomacy. Many Trump supporters were not very clear on the separation of powers as it pertains to that; they believed he, as president, had the “right” to distribute funds on his own timing. But Biden did not have the “right” to fire a Ukrainian prosecutor who was after Hunter. The REAL PROBLEM which the MSM TOTALLY ignored was the role of Ukraine in the hack of the 2016 election and the Biden Crime Family’s involvement in Ukrainian politics, e.g., Hunter on the board of an energy co. Guiliani called it right on the Biden-Obama friendly ambassador, who also attacked the prosecutor and looked to be sabotaging Trump’s directives. And pictures of Trump nude perfectly support the “Trump hate” supposed to really drive all attempts to curb Trump’s flagrant and continued breaches of rule of law.
 
If you consider the impeachment from the Right angle, from the so-called “whistleblower” to the ambassador to the Hunter cover up, it is indeed “clear cut” that Senate Republicans foiled another deep state coup attempt. But it is pointless to argue with you because you take “fake news” from the NYT and WaPo at face value. And you hate Trump anyway.
 
So this counter-narrative, like every other, develops systematically to counter Dem points point-by-point. And it ambiguates the impeachment and proceedings enough for enough voters to insure Trump misses impeachment and NOT because GOPers embrace a double standard. So "nothing changes." Trump still pres. 
 
If the counter narrative does not play this role, then we must believe enough Republican Senators would say “I’m voting against impeachment even if our guy, unlike theirs, really is guilty as charged even if the case is correctly described in NYT and WaPo and Trump fired honest patriots doing their job to cover his tracks. So What?”

[hollodero]

(07-31-2021, 06:23 PM)Dill Wrote: Cordial disagreement with the bolded: Roy Moore and Al Franken are out of politics because “glaring double standards” do matter. The allegation of such is a primary driver of electorate anger, especially on the right. I’d say EVERYONE minds.

Maybe. I think Moore only lost because Trump did not fully endorse him from the start.

Democrats might be a little stricter (as I said, to me one side clearly is worse), but there's enough counterexamples. Whatever happened to Cuomo, by the way, is this already done and forgotten? That Stacey Abrams did not concede even though she lost in a certified election does not matter much. Even though Trump gets roasted for the same thing (more than just that thing, but still). That is a double standard, isn't it? Maxine Waters pleads for riots if a court doesn't reach the desired verdict. Neglecting what could be perceived as a call for violence, wasn't prejudging a case in that manner real bad when Trump did it? Or calling the courts biased in general, for that matter.

This could turn into one of my lists, but I don't feel like doing that. Double standards are common place, imho.

(07-31-2021, 06:23 PM)Dill Wrote: But if I understand you, you are saying people, "pro-conservatives," would just keep their views and support for Trump, somehow, with or without the equivalences and counter-narratives? Even if the MSM were not "biased" and the Clintons were not "corrupt" and there wasn't a "deep state" out to get Trump and a failed FBI coup and there hadn't been riots last summer, even near the White House? 

Yep, pretty much. These things you mentioned sure were used and played a part in getting to this point. And they will still be cited plenty as justification. But I don't believe it's necessary to even perpetuate them. They do that on their own now in people's heads, and they became merely speech bubbles now. Just to clarify, of course Hillary crime families and Biden crime families will still be used to fuel anger, but you could use anything you wish for that at this point. Whoever democrats pick for president next time, this person will be part of a crime family, or done some other unspeakable things, and if a spirit whispered it into Hannity's ear it's as good an explanation as any. People want the anger, the explanations are just window-dressing.

Imho, the reason (I sum up all my possible responses here) is that every politically active person has already made so much enemies in their environment, or in the virtual environment of the internet, that any kind of reconsideration or mind changing became impossible. Agreeing with the people I hate-debated for so long now? Impossible. For sure, those that don't fall into this description might turn into fickle voters and help letting the pendulum swing left and right in periodic, foreseeable timeframes. But most people will not, most people will stick with the R or the D until eternity. At least on a federal level (local elections might be a different animal, I don't know). While a big portion of the population doesn't vote at all, sure.

I mean, you debated here with distincly "other-side people" for a long time now, about impeachments and then some. Did you never feel how inherently in vain all these efforts were? Do you think that is because carefully crafted counter-narratives weren't all that bad, and if they were just a little worse you'd have had more success? Because I don't. I think it has nothing to do with them at all, as stated before many times.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-31-2021, 04:28 AM)CarolinaBengalFanGuy Wrote: I see you did not cite Fox News

I try and not cite any sources with a known partisan bias, unless it's a bias that would normally work against the topic of discussion.  For example, I'd use a garbage site like Vox or HuffPo if it proved a point about a liberal news item.  Same with Fox and a conservative item.  Otherwise the source become the topic of discussion instead of the actual topic.

(07-31-2021, 08:23 AM)BigPapaKain Wrote: The same Fox News that whose lawyers have stated that no sane person would take what is said on their networks seriously? That Fox News?

Ehh, people/corporations will say pretty much anything if is absolves them of troubling responsibility.  Fox is highly partisan and deliberately slanted, but no more than many far left sources.  They are certainly the largest organization with such a slant, although MSNBC is not too far behind.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-30-2021, 02:15 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah well, the GOP behaviour increases said perception for me. That isn't helped by the selection of people the party chooses to censure.



That is difficult to answer fully. Policy-wise, it's probably to some extent you, or your takes and the many links you provided. Eg. showing that my initial perception how "defund the police" was well-intentioned and just incredibly badly phrased isn't that universally true. Right now, it rather seems as if the term was chosen intentionally to serve/include the more radical takes on the left on this.
Sure enough, I got more aware how radical many takes are, that these radical views get more and more mainstreamed. Examples for that are many, from youtubers (I do not follow youtubers) and especially to  the media narratives (I do follow the media). Police is often getting villified beyond reason, and gross exaggerations are quite common.
For sure though, my perspective is severely hampered, as you yourself rightfully pointed out. I am a media animal mostly, I mainly see the hysteria there. Like activists shouting over every reasonable person making incendiary claims of black people being chased like animals and stupid stuff like that - and apparently no one daring to tell these voices to stop radicalizing people by saying such unhelpful nonsense.

[Regarding youtube, as some anecdotal story, I did come across a guy who was asked about someone's relative who is police, and how to handle said relative, who apparently just by being police has to be a bad, repressive, racist and violent person. Said youtuber tried the "maybe not every policeman is inherently bad" defense and got smoked in the chat by his left-leaning followership for it. This is imho just crazy, but from my multiple impressions on multiple outlets seeing all police as inherently fascist (or whatever) seems way more common place than I initially could imagine.]

My take as an European is even more complicated to describe. For one, even in Europe I live in a blessed country regarding crime in general. Our crime rate is particularly low. Most people here are law-abiding and usually respect authorities. And also most residents, including criminal ones, don't carry deadly weapons around. Therefore, being a policeman in Austria is usually, while still dangerous at times for sure, not a constantly life-threatening tenure. This is quite different in other places of Europe of course, eg. in the southern parts of Italy. For my part, whoever chooses to be a policeman there is some kind of hero that risks his life for the community (or is out for bribes).
In the US, it's probably closer to that situation than to the tranquility of my country. That factors into my perception a lot, for my take has to take this into account. That being said, many people here consider US-American cops and US-American police encounters as frightening, starting from traffic stops, but generally including the power American cops seem to possess (that, as far as I can tell, often go way further than what our police is allowed to do). Then again, being police in America is definitely way more dangerous and threatening, and for that reason alone it's clear that methods differ, even though some methods appear scary and overpowered (eg at what point it's ok to gun someone down).
Generally, like many people I do see a certain problematic tendency in America regarding police and racism. On the one hand, I might understand some forms of racism. Eg. if I had the task to find as many drugs or illegal weapons as possible on the streets, I sure would apply implicit racial profiling (eg. search more young black people than old white people) to fulfil that task. Not because I'm racist, but because that just logically increases my chances. Thoughts and realities like this do play a role, and I get more aware of that in time and tend to be less idealistic - same goes for use of lethal force (not least your imho well-argued explanations changed my mind on that). The accumulation of police brutality towards black people is still hard to negate though, imho. I still see serious issues there. But first and foremost, I see an incredibly dishonest and exaggerated debate about this, from both sides, about this and many other things really. Eg. regarding the mostly peaceful protests, a conservative often goes full "all protesters bad, all police good" and laughs about the mostly peaceful part, and a more leftist person tends to go the "all protesters good, all police bad" route and points to the peacefulness of protesters and the brutality of police, and both sides dig in and throw bad faith arguments at each other. I'd think the truth would lay somewhere in the middle, there's good and bad on both sides and it varies from specific instance to specific instance, but that hardly is a position anyone with a distinct political leaning would back up apparently.

Lastly and in general, I am happy police exists, police makes communities work and protects them, police risk their own well-being to keep them safe, I rather consider them heroes than villains and I find it incomprehensible to see it any other way. I follow the "a few bad apples" narrative rather than the "it's an inherently racist/fascist/badist organisation" narrative. I'm not so sure how many other people still do, in the US and in Europe (we tend to take over liberal American views from time to time, eg. we have black lives matter protests even though we hardly have any blacks here) and I am especially unsure if this take isn't rather suited to earn disagreement from both sides of the american spectrum.

I hope I answered your question in a crucially overboarding manner. :)

My sincere thanks for this take and time it took to type it out.  Very informative and I always enjoy getting an outside perspective on these hot button issues.  Also, I appreciate your talking the time to digest what I've tried to provide on this topic and give it an honest look.  I've said numerous times on here, if I can bring some perspective to just one person then the sniping with those disinclined to even consider the information is well worth it.