Decoding Trumpism: a cult survivor explains how the GOP became a death cult

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Decoding Trumpism: a cult survivor explains how the GOP became a death cult

«‹›158 »

Rocko Bonaparte: Mar 12, 2002; Every day is Friday!

This whole thing with Trump is like a bizarro-world version Howard Dean, where his popularity is being bolstered by screaming constantly.

# ? Aug 10, 2015 18:00

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 3, 2024 11:52

Dameius: Apr 3, 2006

For whomever it was asking about the limits of free speech in the First Amendment on the last page, you'll want to read this Wikipedia article on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions .

The tl;dr is that your speech generally won't be restrained unless you are posing a clear and imminent danger/threat; the classic example cited in the Supreme Court case being you yelling, "fire," in a crowded theater when there isn't one just to cause a riot.

Another example would be you being able to say, "someone should do something about that $politician, and make him hurt," generally allowed while you brandishing a gun at their rally saying, "I am going to kill $politician with this gun right now," can be restricted.

The kind of thinking that goes behind this is also one of the reasons why flag burning is protected speech.

Generally minors, especially when they are acting the capacity of a student, have no rights or protections. The notable case for that was a dude wearing a "Bong Hits For Jesus" shirt at a school rally iirc.

Basically just go read that article.

# ? Aug 10, 2015 18:23

Cactus: Jun 24, 2006

Dameius posted:

For whomever it was asking about the limits of free speech in the First Amendment on the last page, you'll want to read this Wikipedia article on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions .

The tl;dr is that your speech generally won't be restrained unless you are posing a clear and imminent danger/threat; the classic example cited in the Supreme Court case being you yelling, "fire," in a crowded theater when there isn't one just to cause a riot.

Another example would be you being able to say, "someone should do something about that $politician, and make him hurt," generally allowed while you brandishing a gun at their rally saying, "I am going to kill $politician with this gun right now," can be restricted.

The kind of thinking that goes behind this is also one of the reasons why flag burning is protected speech.

Generally minors, especially when they are acting the capacity of a student, have no rights or protections. The notable case for that was a dude wearing a "Bong Hits For Jesus" shirt at a school rally iirc.

Basically just go read that article.

That was me, so thanks. It never occurred to me to just wikipedia it lol.

edit: just read it, interesting:

quote:

False statements of fact

In Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974), the Supreme Court decided that there is "no constitutional value in false statements of fact". However, this is not a concrete rule as the Court has struggled with how much of the "speech that matters" can be put at risk in order to punish a falsehood.

The Supreme Court has established a complex framework in determining which types of false statements are unprotected. There are four such areas which the Court has been explicit about. First, false statements of fact that are said with a "sufficiently culpable mental state" can be subject to civil or criminal liability. Secondly, knowingly making a false statement of fact can almost always be punished. For example, libel and slander law are permitted under this category. Third, negligently false statements of fact may lead to civil liability in some instances. Additionally, some implicit statements of fact�those that may just have a "false factual connotation"�still could fall under this exception.

There is also a fifth category of analysis. It is possible that some completely false statements could be entirely free from punishment. The Supreme Court held in the landmark case New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) that lies about the government may be protected completely. However, this category is not entirely clear, as the question of whether false historical or medical claims are protected is still disputed.

Emphasis mine. The stuff I bolded is things we see the US right wing media do all the time, but then the bit underlined seems to be the loophole they're exploiting to get away with some of it. It all boils down to the question how does a society deal with those who cynically abuse freedom of speech to further harmful agendas without curtailing those who voice their political opinions in good faith. Where is the line drawn between a political opinion and a harmful agenda? How do we define those things? A narritivist believes allowing homosexual marriage or affirmative action (for example) is a harmful agenda and wants to exercise their right to speak out against it, whereas someone like me believes speaking out against it is causing harm by inciting hatred that results in attacks against homosexuals and minorities...

Yeah, a thorny issue indeed.

Cactus fucked around with this message at 19:20 on Aug 10, 2015

# ? Aug 10, 2015 18:52

Prester Jane: Nov 4, 2008; by Hand Knit

Donald Trump's Twitter posted:

�Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump 7m7 minutes ago
Roger Ailes just called. He is a great guy & assures me that �Trump� will be treated fairly on @FoxNews. His word is always good!
303 retweets579 favorites

Oh gently caress me Trump just beat back Fox News while calling Megyn Kelly a bimbo on her period. Bizarrely enough my original analysis that this was all designed to give Fox News cover to radicalize by rooting out its "softer" aspects was about half right. I mean, Trump *IS* going to be bringing massive Compaction Cycles to all of Right Wing media and the GOP establishment as a result of this, but I don;t think this is an Ailes plot so much as it Ailes being outmanouvered by a better sociopath.

Back when I was homeless I once got into a conversation with a guy who casually admitted that he used to mug people (and had done so probably dozens of times) to feed his habit. When I asked him why he stopped the response he gave me has always stayed with me. "Eventually, every predator meets a better predator." What he meant was, he stopped because he believed that someday he would mug the wrong person and get himself killed. Ailes, despite being a soulless scheming monster with a long track record of success, has met a man who is just simply a better soulless scheming monster.

Also, this means Donald Trump might soon be dictating the Narrative with support from Narrativist media outfits and possibly even GOP establishment media outfits as well. I don't know what the gently caress this could lead to anymore, I've never observed a leader with quite this much sway over this many Narrativists before. The only thing I can say is whatever happens will become increasingly divorced from reality. If Donald Trump manages to unite a significant faction of the GOP behind him with even tepid establishment support/non-interference then Jesus Christ they are going to stop fighting each other and turn on the first goddamn target of oppurtunity that presents itself. Narrativists that are this riled up/believe they have social sanction for their actions NEEEEEEEED an enemy. Right now that enemy is the GOP establishment. If they do not have an enemy in front of them they will go find one and gently caress knows who that might wind up being, possibly it might wind up just being everyone that is not a rich white male.

Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 19:22 on Aug 10, 2015

# ? Aug 10, 2015 19:16

Goon Danton: May 24, 2012; Don't forget to show my shitposts to the people. They're well worth seeing.

It seems clear to me that if Trump gets the nomination, the Narrativist outburst will be directed towards the Democrats and their nominee, and will get subsumed into a more-aggressive-than-normal campaign fight. If he doesn't get the nom but keeps leading the Narrativists as a third party, it will be directed toward the GOP establishment, and will absolutely rip it to shreds. They're embedded into the structure of the party, and if the Enemy is suddenly their boss, we can expect a lot of defections and sabotage in the Republican ranks.

# ? Aug 10, 2015 19:50

ToxicSlurpee: Nov 5, 2003; -=SEND HELP=-; Pillbug

Cactus posted:

That was me, so thanks. It never occurred to me to just wikipedia it lol.

edit: just read it, interesting:

Emphasis mine. The stuff I bolded is things we see the US right wing media do all the time, but then the bit underlined seems to be the loophole they're exploiting to get away with some of it. It all boils down to the question how does a society deal with those who cynically abuse freedom of speech to further harmful agendas without curtailing those who voice their political opinions in good faith. Where is the line drawn between a political opinion and a harmful agenda? How do we define those things? A narritivist believes allowing homosexual marriage or affirmative action (for example) is a harmful agenda and wants to exercise their right to speak out against it, whereas someone like me believes speaking out against it is causing harm by inciting hatred that results in attacks against homosexuals and minorities...

Yeah, a thorny issue indeed.

The big thing is that Fox found ways to get around that using weasel words. That's been an issue with news in general, though; a lot of the time when some major thing that people are paying close attention comes up you'll hear "well they're speculating..." or "we have a statement that says..." and such crap. It's very illegal to say something like "Obama ate a baby yesterday. This is fact." but perfectly fine to say "some people are saying Obama might have eaten a baby" and then deliberate for an hour on whether or not Obama is the kind of person who would eat a baby.

Outright lying in the media is extremely illegal but speculating and reporting on what Bob and Cheryl were saying at the water cooler is not. So long as some people said X thing you can go on the news and say "some people are saying X." So long as you word X right it's nothing but speculation. The issue is that people look at the program labelled "news" and start believing the speculation.

Obama never said he wasn't a baby eater. Sounds fishy...I wonder how many babies Obama's eaten this week?

# ? Aug 10, 2015 19:56

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

Prester John posted:

but I don;t think this is an Ailes plot so much as it Ailes being outmanouvered by a better sociopath.

Yeah there is a a lot of infighting about whose narrative should be the narrative. Some of it goes back, way back, decades.

# ? Aug 10, 2015 21:02

I AM GRANDO: Aug 20, 2006

Didn't fox news go to court for the right to lie on the air? And win?

# ? Aug 11, 2015 00:24

Captain_Maclaine: Sep 30, 2001; Every moment that I'm alive, I pray for death!

Jack Gladney posted:

Didn't fox news go to court for the right to lie on the air? And win?

If I remember right, that was a specific FOX affiliate station.

# ? Aug 11, 2015 00:27

Klaus88: Jan 23, 2011; Violence has its own economy, therefore be thoughtful and precise in your investment

Captain_Maclaine posted:

If I remember right, that was a specific FOX affiliate station.

"Oh my god, you just knocked fox off the air!"

:fry:

"Psh, like anyone on earth cares."

# ? Aug 11, 2015 00:32

Prester Jane: Nov 4, 2008; by Hand Knit

Jack Gladney posted:

Didn't fox news go to court for the right to lie on the air? And win?

IIRC that case is actually considerably more complicated than that. I think I've read some detailed writeups by goons over the years saying essentially that but I'm not 100%.

In other News, Trump has completely triumphed over Fox.

CNN Money posted:

"Donald Trump and I spoke today," Ailes said in a statement obtained by CNNMoney. "We discussed our concerns, and I again expressed my confidence in Megyn Kelly. She is a brilliant journalist and I support her 100 percent."

Ailes continued: "I assured him that we will continue to cover this campaign with fairness & balance. We had a blunt but cordial conversation and the air has been cleared."
A Fox News spokeswoman said Kelly will briefly "acknowledge" the controversy on her 9 p.m. program -- and then move on.

They booked Trump for two separate appearances on Fox tomorrow, one at 7am and one on Fox and Friends.

This is funny for now but it is starting to kind of creep me out. I haven't seen this sort of poo poo played out in full view of the public before, it reminds of the power struggles I saw go on in various micro cults I was involved with in my teens/20's. The rush people get from winning a fight like this is pretty remarkable and usually drives the winner into a state of euphoria at first, and then wiiiiiiiiiild rear end irrational behavior once the euphoria starts to wear off.

Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 00:47 on Aug 11, 2015

# ? Aug 11, 2015 00:33

Prester Jane: Nov 4, 2008; by Hand Knit

Quoting this for context.

Prester John posted:

Rapid Narrative Convergence Event: This is a complicated concept, so please bear with me here. Rapid Narrative Convergence Events (Hereafter abbreviated R.N.C.E.) are so named because they occur very quickly first off. Secondly, these are essentially one-off self contained events that occur within the context of a larger Narrative Convergence, but are themselves too short lived to be a trend in and of themselves. They are a symptom of differing groups of Authoritarians being under long term stress, a sort of relief valve for pent up rage and fear. These are dramatic events in which several different groups of Authoritarians temporarily suspend their own Inner Narratives in exchange for a new (and very short lived) Outer Narrative. These happen only in the presence of a mutually perceived threat to the tribe and last only so long as the threat lasts. As soon as the threat ends, so does the R.N.C.E. (As a result, as soon as the threat ends, Inner Narrative's suddenly reassert themselves, and the once united Authoritarian groups fracture quickly as they squabble over power.) This is my explanation of what occurred at the Bundy Ranch, and to a certain extent, what caused the 2013 shutdown.

There are several factors that must be in place for an R.N.C.E. to occur. These are

An ongoing long term Narrative Convergence between multiple Authoritarian groups.

The presence of a perceived threat to the tribe/prominent member of the tribe.

A long term emotional buildup in Authoritarian groups.

Recent humiliating defeats.

A method to create a public fight with clear battle lines and defined sides. (A conflict of Good vs Evil)

A Rapid Narrative Convergence Event typically plays out thusly:

1.) Differing groups of Authoritarians have already been communicating with each other and coming to some agreement on elements of their Outer Narrative's that conform to the Grand Narrative.

2.) Tensions are high due to a recent defeat (or series of defeat) in an arena where the Authoritarians do not feel like they were even able to fight. (Authoritarians always want a big dramatic battle with clearly defined lines, a clear big event they can rally to and obvious bad guys to destroy. The prolonged non-battle of the culture wars is infuriating because Authoritarians feel like they are losing without even being allowed to step in the ring. From an emotional standpoint, they are raring to go charge in to battle, and the politician just walks out and says "We Lost, Go Home" without a shot being fired. They feel betrayed and used. There is a deep desire for the kind of battle Authoritarians understand, and that means big, public, and as dramatic as possible.)

3.) A perceived imminent threat to either the tribe or an important member of the tribe emerges. (Tribe here is used loosely. Multiple Authoritarian groups must all be able to empathize with the target of the treat, which means they identify the target of the threat as one of their own.)

4.) Multiple Groups of nominally opposed Authoritarians agree with each other on the nature of the threat and the need for immediate action. (This quickly creates a feedback cycle. Imagine a UFO nut saying "Why, even the Christians can see this threat and the need for action!" Confirmation bias becomes very strong)

5.) There is a dramatic swell of emotion that Authoritarians get swept up in. "ACTION NOW!" becomes the rallying cry.

6.) A variety of Authoritarian groups unite against the common threat by temporarily abandoning their own personal Inner Narratives. A new (temporary) Outer Narrative emerges. An inherent and understood hierarchy is embraced without ever being formalized.

7.) The battle is joined, but there is no plan for achieving victory. The only plan is to fight big fight hard.

8.) Win or lose, as soon as the threat is ended the new (temporary) Outer Narrative evaporates and Inner Narratives reassert themselves. As a result, the never formalized hierarchy is quickly challenged, unity dissolves, and each group jostles for position according to the dictates of their own Inner Narratives.

I've been watching this play out and poo poo is getting weird. There has been a massive battle in Narrativist media for the past few days with different outfits taking different sides in the conflict. Of those opposed to Trump, The Blase was the most outspoken. There has been a semi organized boycott of The Blaze and it seems to have had real impact. Articles on their website have gone from getting around 1.5k shares on average to >50. As of the past hour all the anti-Trump content has been memory holed and in its place is an article about Hillary Clinton attacking trump for his Megyn comments and another article about Bristol Palin attacking the GOP and its "outrage industry" for criticizing Trump.

I think that at this point we really are watching a RNCE form and I would guess that we are currently somewhere around late step 5/early step 6 in my chart.

# ? Aug 11, 2015 01:03

Halloween Jack: Sep 12, 2003; I WILL CUT OFF BOTH OF MY ARMS BEFORE I VOTE FOR ANYONE THAT IS MORE POPULAR THAN BERNIE!!!!!

Prester John posted:

I agree, trying to conceptualize Fox as a single actor lead to rather bizarre contortions of logic. (In retrospect my condition was getting the better of me and its kind of embarrassing that I devoted so much energy into that angle/even wrote it, but oh well, live and learn.) When I watched the debate I was kind of stunned because it almost seemed to be deliberate in how it was playing into Trumps hands. Now though having watched the fallout, it seems to me that Fox and the larger GOP really do not understand their radicalized base at all. The GOP turning on Trump over his Misogyny is one of the worst loving places they could have chosen to draw the line at. Narrativists are going to be furious and it will be fascinating to watch the fallout from this.

Well, PJ, don't feel too bad. I remember you said earlier (in your ACE thread I think) that in the Christian authoritarian mindset, the dominion of man over woman is more important than the dominion of whites over other races, and that if Hillary ran, we'd see an outpouring of misogynist bigotry to meet or exceed the racist bigotry from 2008 and 2012. I think that it's definitely a part of what's going on.

# ? Aug 11, 2015 02:29

Loel: Jun 4, 2012; "For the Emperor."

There was a terrible noise.
There was a terrible silence.

Y'know... when I start thinking of an over the top megalomaniac with a cult of personality who puts his name and face on everything...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Fascism

# ? Aug 11, 2015 03:44

Prester Jane: Nov 4, 2008; by Hand Knit

Megyn Kelly addressed the dustup between her and Donald Trump and ~~defused things~~ just threw kerosene on a bonfire.

Mediate posted:

Kelly took the high road and refused to even acknowledge Trump�s personal attacks on her, saying, �I certainly will not apologize for doing good journalism.�

Shots fired.

# ? Aug 11, 2015 04:13

Dameius: Apr 3, 2006

Prester John posted:

IIRC that case is actually considerably more complicated than that. I think I've read some detailed writeups by goons over the years saying essentially that but I'm not 100%.

Here is the caselaw in question.

A short summary from Sierra Times posted:

A Florida Appeals court ruled on February 14 that it is legal for press organizations to lie, conceal, or distort information. The decision, which reversed the $425,000 jury verdict in favor of Fox Television journalist Jane Akre, declares that no law is being broken if false information is given in a television broadcast.

In the August 2000 trial, Akre charged she was pressured by management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented to be false information in a story about the use of growth hormones in dairy cows. The six-person jury was unanimous in concluding that Akre was fired because she threatened to report the station for pressuring her to report the false information.

Fox�s attorneys� arguments failed on three separate occasions, in front of three different judges, to have the case dismissed since there is no hard, fast, and written rule against deliberate distortion of the news. The attorneys argued that the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the airwaves.

In a written decision, the Court held that the Federal Communications Commission position against news distortion is only a �policy,� not a promulgated law, rule, or regulation.

# ? Aug 11, 2015 05:18

Fuschia tude: Dec 26, 2004; THUNDERDOME LOSER 2019

This post in the primary thread seems like a decent hypothesis about what happened at Fox over the last week.

Dr.Zeppelin posted:

There has supposedly been a power struggle lately in Newscorp after Murdoch supposedly bumped Ailes from the line of succession in favor of one of the Murdoch sons. Murdoch is on record of being very opposed to Trump's candidacy while Trump and Ailes are close personally. It's very possible to imagine a scenario where Murdoch ordered Trump be taken out and Ailes granted his wish like an evil genie and ran the clumsiest hatchet job imaginable in a way that would just bolster Trump's support and force the network to stop after they got enough hate mail and boycott threats. Ailes ratfucking his employer out of spite and enabling the GOP to destroy itself as a result would be the best possible outcome of all this and is also completely plausible so I'm choosing to believe that's where all of this is heading.

Just more of the Ailes/Murdoch power struggle. Would explain the abrupt shifting of positions at the network.

# ? Aug 11, 2015 05:51

FAUXTON: Jun 2, 2005; spero che tu stia bene

Basically "there is no law against secretly using your local affiliate news programming as a commercial" which fits with the 24-hour news channel model (the news content is under editorial control which maximizes the effectiveness of advertising spots played during a given segment - a 5-minute piece about identity theft portraying it as more pervasive than the common cold, followed by ads for lifelock and the safety features of Amex cards.)

# ? Aug 11, 2015 05:53

Mandy Thompson: Dec 26, 2014; by zen death robot

Prester John posted:

Megyn Kelly addressed the dustup between her and Donald Trump and ~~defused things~~ just threw kerosene on a bonfire.

Shots fired.

Good journalism, from Fox? That's debatable.

# ? Aug 11, 2015 06:05

Die Sexmonster!: Nov 30, 2005

Mandy Thompson posted:

Good journalism, from Fox? That's debatable.

Megyn Kelly rarely shows signs of being both a human being and a valid journalist, it's why her Fox career is extra infuriating.

If I were her I'd be happier at a local CBS station. The network doesn't really matter.

# ? Aug 11, 2015 06:25

Prester Jane: Nov 4, 2008; by Hand Knit

Oathkeepers in full gear out walking with protesters in Ferguson and conducting patrols of neighborhoods. Bonus stump speech for how Trump will save the country if he is elected.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuYVd36LpCw

# ? Aug 11, 2015 15:50

Klaus88: Jan 23, 2011; Violence has its own economy, therefore be thoughtful and precise in your investment

Prester John posted:

Oathkeepers in full gear out walking with protesters in Ferguson and conducting patrols of neighborhoods. Bonus stump speech for how Trump will save the country if he is elected.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuYVd36LpCw

Is it just me, or do those blacks look nervous as gently caress around those oathkeepers?

I mean, unregulated dudes with guns hanging around crowds of :airquote:

uppity

blacks has never ended badly before right?

# ? Aug 11, 2015 15:54

Prester Jane: Nov 4, 2008; by Hand Knit

Klaus88 posted:

Is it just me, or do those blacks look nervous as gently caress around those oathkeepers?

I mean, unregulated dudes with guns hanging around crowds of uppity blacks has never ended badly before right?

Heavily armed 'Oath Keepers' inject new unease to riot-hit Ferguson

Yahoo News posted:

But many in the crowd questioned the wisdom of openly carrying such heavy weapons into an emotionally charged situation.

"You�re going to bring some uncommissioned citizens, white citizens, into a black community like this? It's disrespectful," said Talal Ahmad, 30, who is black and has been a fixture of the last year's protests, which prompted a Justice Department review that found Ferguson's police department routinely violated city residents' civil rights.

"Here, in a black neighborhood, we�re already living in a state of terror," Ahmad said.

Yeah, more or less what you said. Also there is this terrifying bit in the article.

Yahoo News posted:

Led by a man who gave his name only as John, the group, whose members wore bulletproof vests and carried sidearms in addition to combat-style rifles, said they had come to protect a journalist from the conservative "Infowars.com" Web site.

So Alex Jones has his own private volunteer army of Narrativists now. That is just loving great.

# ? Aug 11, 2015 16:07

chairface: Oct 28, 2007; No matter what you believe, I don't believe in you.

Klaus88 posted:

Is it just me, or do those blacks look nervous as gently caress around those oathkeepers?

I mean, unregulated dudes with guns hanging around crowds of uppity blacks has never ended badly before right?

Let's assume they're 100% friendly and on the side of the protesters. I'd still be nervous to be around them because they're either completely unnecessary or there's going to be a shootout with the police. If there's going to be a shootout with the police I'd rather not be standing amongst a group that is actively returning fire at the police, for a variety of reasons.

# ? Aug 11, 2015 20:03

Rocko Bonaparte: Mar 12, 2002; Every day is Friday!

Prester John posted:

So Alex Jones has his own private volunteer army of Narrativists now. That is just loving great.

Gees, I wonder what kind of information that journalist is going to get when that whole armed entourage walks up to some black people and asks them questions.

# ? Aug 11, 2015 20:51

Robotnik Nudes: Jul 8, 2013

Tbh in 2015 America I think there's a lot worse things for protestors than to have some guns around. If it makes even one pig think twice before pigging it up then it's worth it.

# ? Aug 11, 2015 22:36

ocrumsprug: Sep 23, 2010; by LITERALLY AN ADMIN

Robotnik Nudes posted:

Tbh in 2015 America I think there's a lot worse things for protestors than to have some guns around. If it makes even one pig think twice before pigging it up then it's worth it.

This a pretty white thing to say, and it is a really poor idea to be armed when you are protesting.

Beside that, the chances of those dudes being there to defend the journalist from the cops instead of from the scary protestors seems remote.

# ? Aug 12, 2015 01:46

Cantorsdust: Aug 10, 2008; Infinitely many points, but zero length.

Robotnik Nudes posted:

Tbh in 2015 America I think there's a lot worse things for protestors than to have some guns around. If it makes even one pig think twice before pigging it up then it's worth it.

Maybe, or maybe things get tense and one stray bullet goes off from who knows where and things end in a bloodbath. Best case scenario is that no one has to use their guns, so why bring them?

# ? Aug 12, 2015 03:45

Cactus: Jun 24, 2006

Robotnik Nudes posted:

Tbh in 2015 America I think there's a lot worse things for protestors than to have some guns around. If it makes even one pig think twice before pigging it up then it's worth it.

From what I can gather that largely depends on what colour the people with the guns are.

# ? Aug 12, 2015 04:52

Klaus88: Jan 23, 2011; Violence has its own economy, therefore be thoughtful and precise in your investment

Plus just by showing up and talking in front of the camera, these oathkeepers have taken a black social equality thing, and turned into a white whatever the hell the oathkeepers stand for anyway thing. Hijacking a protest might be the most blatant example of privilege ever displayed on god's green earth. :stare:

# ? Aug 12, 2015 05:35

Armani: Jun 22, 2008; Now it's been 17 summers since I've seen my mother

But every night I see her smile inside my dreams

Prester John posted:

Megyn Kelly, Fox News under fire on social media with allegations of bias

Whether or not Fox set Megyn Kelly up on purpose, this is now a full fledged attack on her, and either she will need to apologize, be publicly reprimanded in some way, or (likely) be eventually fired when her ratings tank.

Note how the Compaction Cycle is working here, with Trump managing to get various groups of Authoritarians all targeting one member of the tribe for insufficient purity. She is having presure applied to her so that she will either have a "come to Jesus" moment about the Donald or be forced out of RWM.

I hope she doesn't budge an inch on this.

# ? Aug 12, 2015 05:45

Tumblr of scotch: Mar 13, 2006; Please, don't be my neighbor.

Armani posted:

I hope she doesn't budge an inch on this.

Same. I never thought I'd find myself having any kind of sympathy for anyone at Fox, but I'm behind Megyn Kelly 100%, and she's right: It was good journalism.

# ? Aug 12, 2015 07:47

Prester Jane: Nov 4, 2008; by Hand Knit

Stole this from the freep thread.

quote:

To: VideoDoctor

Considering I get most of my news on the internet ... who cares. Between the Internet and talk radio, I�m comfortable with the information I get ... screw FOX.

8 posted on 08/11/2015 10:40:34 PM PDT by doc1019 (Out of my mind ... back in 5)

Granted, this is one comment and is not enough to make a real case out of, but I've seen the same or similar sentiment being echoed all over Narrativist comment sections. It appears that the switch away from Fox News and into more radicalized Narrativist media outfits may be underway. I will be very interested to see Fox's ratings for the period of 2-3 weeks following the debate. If there is a dip, my suggestion is that dip is caused by Narrativist's abandoning Fox and going elsewhere to get their Narrative reinforced.

Klaus88 posted:

Plus just by showing up and talking in front of the camera, these oathkeepers have taken a black social equality thing, and turned into a white whatever the hell the oathkeepers stand for anyway thing. Hijacking a protest might be the most blatant example of privilege ever displayed on god's green earth.

Prison Planet: Media Launches New Demonization Campaign as Oath Keepers Arrive in Ferguson.

Prison Planet posted:

The same establishment media that celebrated black-owned businesses being looted and burned during last year�s Ferguson riots is once again demonizing Oath Keepers � the organization that helped protect property belonging to Ferguson residents from being attacked.

Following Sunday night�s shooting, Infowars reporters Joe Biggs and Jakari Jackson arrived in Ferguson to cover the latest developments. They were flanked by Oath Keepers members who were exercising their right to open carry. Despite the fact that the Oath Keepers immediately began educating Ferguson demonstrators on their constitutional rights and having constructive conversations about how the movement should be about unity and not race hate, the media jumped on their presence and instantly turned it into another opportunity for race baiting and division.

Newsweek quoted the Southern Poverty Law Center, a George Soros-backed outfit that exists solely to smear conservative groups, accusing Oath Keepers of being �fiercely anti-government� and �militaristic�.
St. Louis County Police Chief Jon Belmar also said the group�s presence was �both unnecessary and inflammatory,� while #BlackLivesMatter activist Talal Ahmad questioned why �white citizens� were even allowed to enter a �black community� at all.

The Independent also contributed to the race-baiting, asking why only white people are allowed to carry guns (anyone is allowed to open carry under Missouri law regardless of their skin color).
The term �Oath Keepers� soon began trending on Twitter, where the echo chamber of negative rhetoric was amplified.

An Oathkeeper giving his stump speech for how Trump will fix everything.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMSo3fjZxuM

In this one a black reporter politely calls them out on the white privilege angle. The Infowars guy responds by launching into a speech about the 2nd amendment and explaining how whenever he drives around he carries a gun because he "doesn't trust the police". Then it goes into how there are areas where women walk around with AK-47's on their back and those places are crime free.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDQwBsn8dRo

This is starting to look like some sort of half baked strategy to get Narrativists accustomed to carrying heavy weaponry at political events. While this theory might sound far fetched, it makes perfect sense to the mindset of a Narrativist leader from the Paranoid Cluster like Alex Jones. They think the "Enemy" is constantly engaged in psy-ops to acclimate the public to "open tyranny" so the logical counter to that would be to run psy-ops to get the public accustomed to "open freedom".

Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 15:53 on Aug 12, 2015

# ? Aug 12, 2015 15:31

my dad: Oct 17, 2012; this shall be humorous

Apologies for linking a Cracked article, but a week ago they published one written by a guy who infiltrated the Oath Keepers:

http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-things-i-learned-infiltrating-armed-militia-group/

Might be relevant.

# ? Aug 12, 2015 18:32

Cactus: Jun 24, 2006

I was catching up with the Freep thread recently and saw something potentially interesting when viewed in the context of this thread. Jimrob (the owner of FreeRepublic) recently came out in support of Donald Trump. In past elections, for example when he came out in support of Romney, all freepers who openly disagreed with that stance were banned from the forums in what we here are calling a compaction cycle. This time around, however, people are openly coming out against supporting Trump, only they're not getting banned. This has lead to people in the Freep thread theorising that he may have crunched the numbers and realised he cannot afford to ban any more people because membership would fall too low for his regular Freepathons (quarterly events where he asks Freepers to send in money to "cover the cost of running the site") to continue making enough money to support his lifestyle.

If this is true, we may be about to see unfold in real-time what happens to a narritivist community that is in need of a compaction cycle but is denied one. Will they schism of their own accord and (hopefully) kill off Freerepublic, or will they feel they have nowhere else to go and start to scream at each other in an increasingly bitter, hateful manner?

# ? Aug 12, 2015 19:07

Peztopiary: Mar 16, 2009; by exmarx

Robotnik Nudes posted:

Tbh in 2015 America I think there's a lot worse things for protestors than to have some guns around. If it makes even one pig think twice before pigging it up then it's worth it.

Armed idiots actively make you less safe. Anyone who is an Oathkeeper is an idiot, so.

# ? Aug 12, 2015 19:16

JT Jag: Aug 30, 2009; #1 Jaguars Sunk Cost Fallacy-Haver

Cactus posted:

I was catching up with the Freep thread recently and saw something potentially interesting when viewed in the context of this thread. Jimrob (the owner of FreeRepublic) recently came out in support of Donald Trump. In past elections, for example when he came out in support of Romney, all freepers who openly disagreed with that stance were banned from the forums in what we here are calling a compaction cycle. This time around, however, people are openly coming out against supporting Trump, only they're not getting banned. This has lead to people in the Freep thread theorising that he may have crunched the numbers and realised he cannot afford to ban any more people because membership would fall too low for his regular Freepathons (quarterly events where he asks Freepers to send in money to "cover the cost of running the site") to continue making enough money to support his lifestyle.

If this is true, we may be about to see unfold in real-time what happens to a narritivist community that is in need of a compaction cycle but is denied one. Will they schism of their own accord and (hopefully) kill off Freerepublic, or will they feel they have nowhere else to go and start to scream at each other in an increasingly bitter, hateful manner?

It's too early to do a compaction cycle, I'd guess. He doesn't want to put his chips down on Trump and ban a big portion of his community when even he knows the fuckin' GOP establishment could definitely still derail his campaign at this point.

# ? Aug 12, 2015 19:32

Wales Grey: Jun 20, 2012

Prester John posted:

This is starting to look like some sort of half baked strategy to get Narrativists accustomed to carrying heavy weaponry at political events. While this theory might sound far fetched, it makes perfect sense to the mindset of a Narrativist leader from the Paranoid Cluster like Alex Jones. They think the "Enemy" is constantly engaged in psy-ops to acclimate the public to "open tyranny" so the logical counter to that would be to run psy-ops to get the public accustomed to "open freedom".

I don't think you should interpret actions born of fear (armed guards for this "reporter" no-one cares about because blacks will kill and eat THE TRUTH because they're dumb urban feral sheeple, and cops/feds will kill him because they're statist tools seeking to silence THE TRUTH) as some sort of attempt to acclimate people to seeing armed white people going around in black neighborhoods.

# ? Aug 12, 2015 20:21

Captain_Maclaine: Sep 30, 2001; Every moment that I'm alive, I pray for death!

JT Jag posted:

It's too early to do a compaction cycle, I'd guess. He doesn't want to put his chips down on Trump and ban a big portion of his community when even he knows the fuckin' GOP establishment could definitely still derail his campaign at this point.

That's hardly stopped him before. Last time around he was firmly for Newt and banned Romney supporters right up until the moment he remember he'd always been at war with Eurasia and started banning anyone who wasn't on board with Romney's nomination (and also banned anyone who asked whether the Romney supporters he'd previously banned would be allowed back). I tend to agree he's more unwilling to upset what remains of his gravy train with yet another purge.

# ? Aug 12, 2015 20:32

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 3, 2024 11:52

JT Jag: Aug 30, 2009; #1 Jaguars Sunk Cost Fallacy-Haver

Captain_Maclaine posted:

That's hardly stopped him before. Last time around he was firmly for Newt and banned Romney supporters right up until the moment he remember he'd always been at war with Eurasia and started banning anyone who wasn't on board with Romney's nomination (and also banned anyone who asked whether the Romney supporters he'd previously banned would be allowed back). I tend to agree he's more unwilling to upset what remains of his gravy train with yet another purge.

He's gonna do a purge at some point this cycle. When the GOP nomination is in the bag, at least, if not before. If Trump splits into a third party, he'll decide to either follow him or keep Freep in the herd, he won't tolerate internal dissent on the matter.

# ? Aug 12, 2015 20:35

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Decoding Trumpism: a cult survivor explains how the GOP became a death cult

«‹›158 »