This sort of thing is why long-time liberal Alan Dershowitz is no longer invited to liberal dinner parties
He says that Trump was right that no special counsel should have been appointed, since there was no probable cause for one. And he’s been saying that from the start:
First of all, the president’s 100% right. There never should have been an appointment of special counsel here. There was no probable cause at that point to believe that crimes had been committed. I’ve seen no evidence to suggest that crimes have been committed by the president.
As I’ve said from day one, there should have been a special investigative commission, non-partisan appointed by Congress, with subpoena power to look into the role of Russia and trying to influence American elections and do something about preventing it in the future. Instead of starting out with finger-pointing and trying to criminalize political difference behind the closed doors of a grand jury.
By taking this position, Dershowitz is in agreement with another stellar legal mind, Andrew C. McCarthy. Of course, the big difference is that Dershowitz is a liberal and McCarthy is on the right. So McCarthy never got invited to those parties in the first place.
Here is a clip that fascinates me. It’s of Dershowitz and CNN’s legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin talking about Dershowitz’s position on this issue, as well as other issues connected with Trump. It is worth watching the whole thing, but it is the last minute (which I highlight here) in which Dershowitz particularly shines. This isn’t just about Derhsowitz and Toobin, either. It’s about old-school liberals vs. new. It’s generational, because (as is revealed in the clip) Toobin was once a student of Dershowitz’s:
The statue of Justice carries balancing scales, but she is also blindfolded. The blindfold is one of the most important elements in justice, and it doesn’t mean that justice is unable to see. It means justice is impartial and is applied in the same manner to all, or at least that’s the goal. That’s what Dershowitz is saying here, and he is adding that he has been consistent about that and implies that someone like Toobin looks at justice with a political bias.
I’m not making it up about Dershowitz’s lack of invitations to liberal parties, either. Dershowitz is quoted in this article as having said the following [hat tip: Althouse]:
“None of my liberal friends invite me to dinner anymore,” [Dershowitz] said. “Thanks to Donald Trump, I’ve lost seven pounds. I call it the Donald Trump diet.”
That’s obviously a joke; Dershowitz is trying to laugh at the situation and to make us laugh too. But it veils something quite sinister, which is the universal social ostracization on the part of the left towards a former colleague who has done nothing more than be consistent on a point of legal policy, which puts him in agreement with Trump (and some on the right) about something. That his liberal former dinner hosts/friends happen to disagree with him is something they see as reason to break old bonds and treat him like a social pariah.
Whether it’s literally true about the drying up of the dinner party invitations (and I suspect it is), it is no surprise at all that this has happened even to an old liberal warhourse like Dershowitz. Anyone who is a liberal (or former liberal) and takes a stand that puts him/her in tune with the right finds out soon enough that many liberals will self-righteously—and with the idea that it is their minds that are open and tolerant—go the shunning route and/or the insult route.
[NOTE: I’m curious to know whether Dershowitz is now invited to conservative dinner parties. Now, that would make for some lively discussions, if he decided to go. But if he’s going to conservative dinner parties, why has he lost weight? Is the food less plentiful? Less caloric? Or are the dinner parties fewer in number?]
Dershewitz refuses to say the deer is a horse..
it shows the blind fealty required to the progressive leaders choices as the brains of the body poltiic, the hand cant think, can it?
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Chinese_Stories/Calling_a_deer_a_horse
the setup
The Story
In its traditional and modern usage, the idiom 指鹿為馬 is widely used to describe a situation where a person falsely identifies a situation in order to deceive others or saying the opposite of the truth to justify an action. This is an example sentence:
如果一個污敗之人講解自己的財富和支出為è€è€å¯¦å¯¦ï¼Œé€šéŽå’¬ç‰™å›°é›£ä»¥è³ºä¾†çš„, 有多少人會ä¸åŒæ„; 有多少人會控訴這為指鹿為馬之虚話?
Which translates to:
If a corrupted individual tries to explain his riches and expenditures as the result of honest and gruelling difficulties, how many would disagree; how many people would call his words a deception of “calling a deer a horse”?
but at its core its about fealty..
about obeying a leader even if you think the leader is not making sense
about following orders
Dershowitz refused to act accordingly and is responding as if an arguent is valid and any side can win by being right, but pomo dismantled that, there is only power.
and power, is now seeking to end power seeking to oppose it, even in honesty…
they were not loyal to the system, they were more loyal to the truth, and that wont serve such leaders
If he is invited to conservative dinner parties I’m willing to bet he would be engaged with honesty and respect by his hosts, even if the chat was spirited.
Is it me or are all the stories of people ostracizing others and terminating relationships because of support for Trump and/or that they are conservatives? That is, people of the Left abandoning their friends and acquaintances on the Right?
I’ve got a decent number of conservative/libertarian friends and can think of no one that ever said, “I no longer speak with or am willing to be in the room with our friend X who voted for Hillary”. It is also true that I’ve not been abandoned by any of my Lefty friends and family, but we rarely talk about political matters, and they’ve stopped sharing their stories of how horrible Trump is and will be.
The interesting bit with Dershowitz and Toobin is that the latter carried so much water for Obama that his “What’s happened to you?” is rather comical.
steve walsh:
My personal experience is that ostracism for political reasons is more common left to right. But it happens in the other direction as well. I don’t have the time to look for it right now, but on this blog there have been discussions in which commenters here have said they have stopped talking to certain friends on the left. And many times, when I’ve mentioned difficulties with friends or relatives over politics, I’ve been told to cut off those friendships and get new friends.
The primary modern “liberal” value is not liberty, nor the rule of law, nor the consistent and indifferent application of principle to like cases. It is not even, or most especially it is not, about personal virtue.
It is about “inclusion”; the neurotic schoolmarm and weak-male value; their most salient and desperate “need”, and their supposed sine qua non of psychological and personal fulfillment.
“Inclusion”: a term which seems to have sprung from virtually nowhere a decade or two ago, to prominence in all moral and sociopolitical discourse today.
But inclusion, implying a sometimes soft, sometimes hard totalitarianism, has always been at the core of group-responsibility collectivism. Which is why that particularly apt term “collectivist” is so much more descriptive than either liberal or progressive. It’s the religion of the ass-sniffers, and of most of the world’s population outside of The United States.
Unfortunately, they are here in ever increasing numbers too.
The leftists believe they are morally and intellectually superior people. They have been told that all their lives. I joke that they have overdosed on self esteem. When you disagree with them, then you are obviously stupid or evil. Who wants to associate with stupid evil people? Even worse, it might be contagious and you could become infected.
There’s likely a difference between the shunning that goes left to right versus right to left.
I think that there is right to left shunning too, but most, if not all, of that arises because the left winger refuses to stop making their political talking points in the presence of the right winger. The only way to stop hearing repetitive political diatribe after diatribe is to avoid contact with the left winger. The shunning isn’t a permanent knee-jerk reaction.
On the other hand, all it takes for a left winger to ostracize a right winger (or even another left winger, as in Dershowitz’s case) is the slightest slip-up. You don’t have to even say you voted for Trump, simply agreeing with any move, large or small, Trump has made is worthy of immediate and permanent exile.
I think most right wingers shunning former left wing friends would give them another chance if they simply shut up about politics around them. There are no second chances with the left because they are religious fundamentalists when it comes to their politics. And like in Islam, apostates and infidels should not only never be befriended but they are also worthy of death.
I know I’ve mentioned as much on this forum before but I am and have always been a person who instinctively tries to reduce a view on a subject to tangible, measurable fact. Its not always possible, because the real world can’t always be perfectly measured; and it’s not always possible because I still am a human being with all the faults thereof. But one thing I will not do is believe in, and stand up and fight for, something when facts dictate otherwise, even if I want to believe it. I cannot say how many times I’ve geared up for a debate on something and then, on having located facts or data realized that my position was not as supportable as I had hoped/believed. This is one of the reasons I never was a lefty, even when I was young. There are lots of things that “should” be, but if they aren’t, I’m not going to war against reality. Leftism is a religion, no less so than any other fundamentalist religion, and you can’t argue with its believers on the basis of fact.
When I was young and foolish, my biggest failing was believing that people believed patently false things simply because facts had not been presented to them. I fully expected to change minds if I could sufficiently gather facts to prove my case. We all know that doesn’t happen, particularly when there is emotional investment in the belief. Someone who is still shopping ideas can be convinced with presentation of facts, but that is so rare.
Things are accelerating as they spin toward utter absurdity. I cannot even understand how you can hold, at the same moment, two opposite things as true; or flip your position on something without any sort of epiphany or “mea culpa” in between but the hard left and its worshippers do so at every moment. I disrespect them for their unthinkingness – their inability to harbor an independent thought or to have any desire, much less ability, to subject a belief to logical analysis or question an idea that has been spoon-fed or forced upon them.
On so many things, when you pin a hard leftist, they will essentially say that it’s not an act – it’s who performs the act that determines the rightness or wrongness. That is simply counter to all that Western civilization spent centuries establishing. I for one don’t want to devolve to where the hard left wants to go.
Kyndyll:
Please read this post, which is my attempt to explain the mindset that allows a person to “hold, at the same moment, two opposite things as true; or flip your position on something without any sort of epiphany or ‘mea culpa’ in between.”
“There are lots of things that “should” be, but if they aren’t, I’m not going to war against reality. Leftism is a religion, no less so than any other fundamentalist religion, and you can’t argue with its believers on the basis of fact.When I was young and foolish, my biggest failing was believing that people believed patently false things simply because facts had not been presented to them. I fully expected to change minds if I could sufficiently gather facts to prove my case. We all know that doesn’t happen, particularly when there is emotional investment in the belief. Someone who is still shopping ideas can be convinced with presentation of facts, but that is so rare.”
Kyndyll–Well-put and so true!
“It isn’t so much that liberals are ignorant. It’s just that they know so many things that aren’t so.” – RR
Most people, not all, who identify as liberals are divorced from reality. There are real, readily observed, examples of the utter failure of their ideology to produce the desired outcomes of their policies, but they choose to ignore reality and keep seeking the same old failed policies. Liberals are emotionally invested in the idea that they are the good and we are the evil.
Sad, and dangerous.
As for ostracizing each other: I have definitely unfollowed some hard left friends, and failed to make any attempts to reach out in real life in the last year or two, but as jacksting says, it’s mainly because I get tired of hearing about their politics, 24/7/365. It’s all they care about, all they can talk about. I don’t live and breathe politics all day, every day; I was actually raised that it isn’t polite to talk about, much less pick fights about, politics or religion. This is why I have always limited my political debate to online forums, where I am a responsible, ongoing community member, but I am not “me”.
My lefty friends have every right to believe what they want; and I have every right to think what I think about them for it. It’s the same unflattering stuff that I used to think about the hardcore christian zealots that were my original online opponents way back when. They, however, have no acceptance of the idea that I, or anyone else, have any right to believe something different than they do. That’s why they think we’re evil and stupid, and why the situation is becoming – uniquely, in the US experiment – dangerous.
So in “real life” forums, while I am posting pictures of flowers, they are yammering on about Trump this or Trump that, or evil, stupid christians, or republicans (which are the same thing in their world – all republicans are evil stupid christians, or possibly a few of them evil, stupid racists that don’t go to church very often). They are so closed and arrogant that they don’t realize that there are huge numbers of people who think differently than they do that don’t fit their stereotype – because many people don’t blather nonstop about politics, and because these days, anyone with any sense of self-preservation (or who is old enough to have learned about 1930s Germany or the USSR or other modern, murderous tyrannies) keeps their mouth shut about wrongthink.
It’s pretty much a one-way ostracism up to this point: they hate us for believing differently, while we hate their ideas but have tried to remain friends and family members.
I live in CO. I am a Conservative Republican Libertarian (what ever that is), and I hereby extend an invitation to Mr. Dershowitz to join my wife and I for Ribeye Steaks and Potato Salad and a good Red Wine on our Patio anytime he cares to join us. The weather is almost to the point to eating outside.
“Free men are aware of the imperfection inherent in human affairs, and they are willing to fight and die for that which is not perfect. They know that basic human problems can have no final solutions; that our freedom, justice, equality, etc. are far from absolute; and that life is compounded of half measures, compromises, lesser evils, and groping toward the perfect.
The rejection of approximations and insistence on absolutes are the manifestations of a nihilism that loathes freedom, tolerance, and equity.”
Quote from Eric Hoffer 3/25/1968.
The beat goes on. And now the left, as Professor Dershowitz points out, is trying desperately to criminalize political thought and activity. That’s a primary feature of a Banana Republic. We are moving too quickly toward that. Thank God for prominent men like Professor Dershowitz who are standing up for truth and justice. As should we all.
I am almost finished with “The Suicide of the West” by John Burnham, published in 1985. It is quite astonishing how closely today’s lefty political climate and activities are the realization of his ideas.
Note that Robert Mueller was appointed by Bush and continued to server under Obama. This would indicate he is fairly impartial since Obama and Bush are hardly allies. Note too that Robert Mueller was appointed by Rod Jay Rosenstein, who was Trump’s appointee as Deputy Attorney General for the US Department of Justice.
Rosenstein said in a statement, “My decision is not a finding that crimes have been committed or that any prosecution is warranted. I have made no such determination. What I have determined is that based upon the unique circumstances the public interest requires me to place this investigation under the authority of a person who exercises a degree of independence from the normal chain of command.”
I don’t necessarily disagree with what Dershowitz says but it is simply his opinion. I would call the investigation a non-partisan approach. The INFORMATION that comes out of it may serve liberals more than Trump supporters but that’s simply the nature of the investigation and the coverage by the press.
I’d invite Dershowitz for dinner and tell him this. But he’s probably not much into frozen personal pan pizza’s…
Great quote JJ. Between denial of reality and unacceptance of the fact that there are NO perfect solutions to most problems (ideologues, not pragmatists), Leftists are destroying the fabric of our culture. I would say they are childish, but my 7 year old grandchild is evidence that even a child can possess wisdom, grace and reason. Three things sadly lacking in the encounters I personally have had with family/friends in this community.
Montage:
There are plenty of partisans who have served under presidents of both parties, so it means nothing, particularly if their partisanship was kept under wraps for quite some time. It happens.
And no, it’s not “simply” an opinion that Dershowitz is giving, like whether he likes a certain movie. That’s how I interpret your assertion that it was “simply” his opinion. If something is simply an opinion, I take that to mean it is arbitrary and there is no way to judge it as right or wrong.
A legal opinion is never “simply” an opinion in that same way, although it certainly is an opinion. What Dershowitz says is based on his interpretation of the relevant law. Other lawyers disagree, of course, because that’s what all lawyers do—they argue and disagree with each other. But I wouldn’t characterize any of those opinions as “simply” their opinions, if they back the opinion up with legal reasoning.
But what Dershowitz is doing here that’s especially unusual and rare (in lawyers or anyone else) is that he’s been saying that the man he doesn’t like, doesn’t support, and didn’t vote for is correct, and that the legal justification for appointing a special counsel was not met.
Dershowitz doesn’t like to admit Trump is right, but he’s saying it anyway because he (Dershowitz) has consistently held to a certain principle involving the necessary standard for appointing a special counsel. Dershowitz has held to that standard no matter who was president or whether he liked the person or not.
Anniversary of Prague Spring today… 50 years…
It was the birth of “Socialism with a Human Face.”
Like a person who argues for arguments sake, they are always in opposition and have no real beliefs so as to easily be so, the fight is what its about, and winning it and the subjugation of the other is the point… validity is just a limitation
or something like that
Neo,
As you know, legal experts, judges and lawyers disagree all the time. The Supreme Court, who most would say have the finest legal minds, rarely reach a consensus. For each case they render an opinion. So opinion is not meant to be pejorative.
I say Dershowitz’s view is ‘simply’ an opinion because it has no legal bearing on this situation. He’s giving his expert advice [and opinion] on talk shows and through the media. that’s great but it won’t likely affect the case. I’m also saying I don’t disagree with him. I support [in principle] those on both sides who choose personal integrity over toeing the party line.
I also think Mueller and Rosenstein are impartial based on what I have seen of their investigation. I’m no expert, true. But I do know they have no control over how their investigation is spun by the left or derided by the right.
Oh, I question if the “wise latina” or RBG’s professed agreement that international laws are relevant to the Constitution of the USA are impartial or the creme de la creme of legal minds.
As Jefferson noted, the Federal Judiciary is the most dangerous branch of the Federalism.
Montage:
Yes, Dershowitz’s opinion has no legal bearing on the situation.
And yes, lawyers certainly disagree!! As do judges. But it is possible to evaluate the relative strength of such opinions, and to do so objectively, although objectivity is.rare. The thing that is impressive about Dershowitz is that he really does apply the same reasoning to both sides, which makes him more likely to really be objective in his opinion.
Neo,
I agree Dershowitz seems to stay consistent. Too bad his old friends seem to make him a pariah for it. I watched the full 10 minute CNN clip and it’s pretty good back and forth until Toobin says Dershowitz is carrying Trump’s water. I don’t think that is true.
As to politics causing a falling out with family and acquaintances it is one of the very best things about not being on Facebook. I had a very casual presence there about five or six years ago and politics was rarely talked about then. I lost interest and deleted my account several years ago but from time to time in real life someone will mention how some family member or friend talks of nothing but politics on there and I don’t even want to hear it. Politics is not my life and it shouldn’t be for most people and the obsessions that started with the God King Obama and have now flipped with the evil Trump are unbelievably corrosive and I don’t want them to ruin things when I see a cousin or friend the one time a year.
This environment is just not good for a society. The constant stress and conflict and doom and gloom is not good.
The American right is classical liberal. Dershowitz is last generation’s liberal. He clings to principles that are insufficiently divergent for the [ruling] minority good.
Dershowitz is in profound and willful denial about the democrat party’s abandonment of classical liberal principles in favor of collective ideology.
“that’s what all lawyers do–they argue and disagree with each other.” neo
How do you argue and disagree with a valid point?
That’s because they’re interested in winning the debate not in getting closer to the truth of the matter. Were they interested in getting to the heart of the issue, they’d readily acknowledge a valid point and allow it to modify their position.
NO lawyer would ever rule as Solomon did when called upon to decide to whom the child should go.
It’s also the reason why the great majority of lawyers today are democrats. It’s all about winning and the power, wealth and perks that are the winner’s ‘due’.
Botton line, I know right from wrong. I can not respect or sanction any court or congress or msm that tells me otherwise. It is not that I am so wise, it is because my father, uncles, a dandfathers and grandmothers schooled me on what is right and wrong.
I believe them… the msm deepatate not at all. We may be few, but we are…. more than you can handle.
Whenever humans aggregate into large majorities, they will start believing that their group is good and everybody that is opposed to them, is bad or evil.
That’s why there is renewed conflict between those who believe the Earth (plus NASA) is the way they said it is and the opposing camp that disagrees.
The vast majority of Westerners believe as they were indoctrinated in school: that the scientific consensus determined the nature of the earth a long time ago. They are not susceptible to the idea that their cosmology is incorrect and that the earth itself is not a sphere but an artificial construct like a ringworld. It doesn’t matter if it is religion or politics, the majority that creates the bubble inculcates the idea that those in the bubble are superior to the minority outside the bubble.
That works out quite well for social harmony until one group is warring against another for one. Or if one group can no longer tolerate the existence or ideas of the other.
Everyone knows that on a sphere the earth curves downwards. This phenomenon should be observable to the naked eye with ships. Digital and optical zoom, however, has sighted ships out on the sea horizon at more than 10 miles. Islands at 40. And continents farther than that. A ringworld curves up, for residents on the inner surface. A sphere would curve downwards, except there is no observable curvature. Not for military hardware targeting over the horizon using line of sight (not radar).
Lawyers are the way they are or corrupt because of the same reason why journalists are.
The American people decided going to sleep as slaves was a good idea and abdicated power to lawyers and journalists to do the job American citizens felt unworthy and uninterested in doing.
Now that people want their power, DC is not going to let that happen.
jacksting Says:
March 22nd, 2018 at 2:24 pm
There’s likely a difference between the shunning that goes left to right versus right to left.
* * *
Right-Left is perhaps not the most important continuum, since there are persons on both sides who shun rather than either debating or ignoring opposing viewpoints.
The operative axis may be something more like “openness to disagreement” aka (real) “tolerance” vs. “closed mindedness” aka (real) “bigotry” which applies to all ideological factions.
— although it does seem that the True Left is currently trying to beat any tolerance out of their camp followers with greater fanfare than on the Right —
But perhaps it is just more “apparent” in that direction because of things such as (1) some people have retained a view that the Left is still composed of Liberals, so unfriending / ostracizing one’s former associates seems more dissonant — thus more noticeable — than when done by one’s Uncle the (presumed) Grand Kleagle; (2) in order to get Virtue Points, the unfrienders make a big show of it, whereas the Right just attends to business — when done correctly, the person Cut may not even notice; (3) the Left expects apologies and contrition from the chastised, with a quick return to the Party Line, because that’s what they are accustomed to now — the Right’s dissenters generally don’t back down when principles collide — so the people who DON’T conform after correction are more noticeable because of their rarity.
Just a few ideas.
However, I think there are elements of Leftist ideology in general that do, in fact, incubate and nurture feelings of superiority (unsupported by any evidence), which leads to more virulent assertions of their increasingly narrow boundaries for Correct Thought.
This environment is just not good for a society. The constant stress and conflict and doom and gloom is not good.
It’s all part of the DS plan that will lead to Civil War 2 (but not end there).
And Americans plus the West, are not doing anything effective about it.
Unlike most people here, I didn’t jump on the Victory Trum bandwagon after the elections. Nor was I attacking Trum voters as OM and others did here. Americans are free to fool themselves into believing that they are free to do what they want.
It’s not going to save them or the nation. But people are free and blissful in their ignorance until then. They are free to believe that Trum will be the Right’s Messiah Hero King, as Hussein was to the Left. Doesn’t mean they will be saved from anything. New Orleans hasn’t been saved. Nor Detroit or Chicago or San Fran. Hollywood or District of the Goddess Columbia hasn’t been saved. Some admin changes via Executive orders have been changed, but the Deep State will take care of that when they see fit.
There’s all kinds of things and powers that people don’t know about. Even if they try to fight against the tide of fate, their ignorance and lack of strategic depth just isn’t going to pull victory out. Not this time for America, for the Divine Contract has already been broken and the historical providence protecting the US has been removed.
Geoffrey Britain:
“How do you argue and disagree with a valid point?” Easy. You bring up another, more valid point. You argue as to why one point trumps the other point. You point out the flaws in the first point. There are many ways. Often there are valid points pro and con and it’s a matter of emphasis. That’s what debate is about. If right and wrong were always crystal clear the world would be a different place.
I first experienced the phenomenon when I was in law school and read Supreme Court decisions. With some, the side I agreed with was obvious and the wrong side was also obviously wrong (to me, at least). With other decisions—many of them—I agreed with each side while I was reading it. They all seemed to have had very valid arguments. That happened more often than one would think.
Griffin Says:
March 22nd, 2018 at 8:43 pm
As to politics causing a falling out with family and acquaintances it is one of the very best things about not being on Facebook….
This environment is just not good for a society. The constant stress and conflict and doom and gloom is not good.
* * *
http://thefederalist.com/2018/03/19/social-media-mistake-heres-experiment-find/
“The role of social media as the new ideological gatekeepers is just part, although the leading part, of our overall dissatisfaction with their product. There is the damage they are doing to the attention spans and social lives of teens who are growing up on them. There is the phenomenon of the Twitter mob and the way social media is responsible for gamifying moral outrage, where readers score points and level up by getting people fired, often based on nothing more than rumors and mass hysteria.
Then there are the awful economics for actual producers of content. Social media companies are designed to profit off our free labor while they treat us like garbage. … At least Facebook has the decency to return a handsome profit by exploiting its access to my entire social network.
It’s time to give up on all of this, writing it off as a failed experiment. So here is what I’m going to do.”
neo,
“How do you argue and disagree with a valid point?” GB
“Easy. You bring up another, more valid point. You argue as to why one point trumps the other point. You point out the flaws in the first point. There are many ways. Often there are valid points pro and con and it’s a matter of emphasis. That’s what debate is about.”
Yes, that is what debate is about, winning the argument. In the case of lawyers, too often by whatever deceitful if not strictly illegal means are necessary.
A deeper insight into the heart of the issue is not gained by ‘one upping’ a valid point through pointing out its incompleteness. Deceitfully claiming that its validity is invalidated by the areas in which it fails to encompass every facet of the issue.
To suggest it does is to engage in lies and lies, lead away from the truth.
Our legal system rests upon the premise that generally, each side operates from a morally upright position.
It is not just our Constitution that “is only fit for a moral and religious people”… that same calculus applies to our justice system as well.
The internet was only free due to anonymity. If we are to replace one social totalitarian tyranny with another, then the internet no longer is as useful as a tool for a free society.
Starting a fresh with a new cognomen, is something even writers and poets utilize. But Westerners thought it a “good idea” to put their names online and their real identities. People believed it would stop the trolling or force people to get skin in the game.
Well, your skin is in the game, humans. Now you cannot retreat from the online war, the culture war, the political war, or anything else, because your IDENTITY is stuck here. Way to pick a place to die like Cluster.
It’s better to bifurcate one’s identities and profiles, to make it more difficult for Deep State agents to pinpoint your behavior. A predictable behavior makes a HVT a soon to be dead HVT.
I am surprised that people didn’t realize just how paranoid I was of the State Surveillance system before 2007. And these people “knew” me online since 2003 almost. I did not give that impression out, because I knew to adhere to something called OPSEC: Operational security.
If a person doesn’t need to know something about my security details, I won’t mention it to them. Given how much I write, they should have eventually conducted a profile of my behavior, although they often got it wrong. Some of these people knew about profiles from hunting terrorists in Iraq even.
The military lawyers sometimes fall for the obvious traps though. I found that laughable.
AesopFan,
Yep I think social media may end up being the most destructive innovation in world history. It is tearing the fabric of society apart I firmly believe. Look at how many things happen simply because of Twitter mobs. Extremely small groups of motivated aggrieved affecting major policies on the rest of us. Really messed up.
Geoffrey Britain:
What on earth are you getting at?
Of course, arguments can contain lies. That’s not “another VALID point.” It’s a lie.
There’s a difference.
It is tearing the fabric of society apart I firmly believe. Look at how many things happen simply because of Twitter mobs. Extremely small groups of motivated aggrieved affecting major policies on the rest of us. Really messed up.
They have been doing that in the US since long ago, way before 1930s. You only notice it now because the astroturf has turned transparent.
Society is full of indoctrinated drones and slaves that think they are free. Society will always tear itself apart sooner or later given human nature.
neo-neocon Says:
March 22nd, 2018 at 11:57 pm
Geoffrey Britain:
What on earth are you getting at?
He’s differentiating the unethical strategic goals of humans, specifically some lawyers, from the regular debate using logic or rhetoric.
Ymar,
Yes but they have had to play a long game until now. With social media they can change policy (corporate especially) in a matter of days. That’s what is so dangerous. Rapid, careening policy is not conducive to a stable society.
Ragnarok and Apocalypse has been a long game, sure, 6000+ years in the planning. Not possible for mortals to fathom its depths.
With social media they can change policy (corporate especially) in a matter of days. That’s what is so dangerous.
Guns are dangerous too, just depends on the user.
Rapid, careening policy is not conducive to a stable society.
Jeremiah said bad things would happen to Israel, the nation that was powerful because of JHVH’s war potential, and it took about 3-4 decades.
Some people already knew, somehow, that US Civil War 2 was inevitable. Nothing people have done so far, has changed fate.
The more they fight the Left and evil, the more they become like the Left and evil. It is a unique power of true evil to convert people by contact. The opposing force has that ability as well.
So why do Republicans and Democrats become unable to convert each other? Because neither are good or evil, they’re just superficial onion layers and tools. Doesn’t surprise me. It fits within my calculations and inspiration from the Holy Ghost, since 2007. It is regrettable to see the US fall, but all nations have to fall sooner or later. Especially when they betray their patron Goddess Columbia.
Thank you for your fine article. You do nice work.
“They are free to believe that Trum will be the Right’s Messiah Hero King, as Hussein was to the Left.”
Probably the single most common NeverTrumper fallacy. Trump’s election was simply voting for someone who was not actively hostile to America. A lot of us simply viewed him as a holding action. We fully expect this will not be settled with anything short of the cartridge box. As with the last Democrat attempt to impose slavery.
As for the so-called “shunning” from the right? More like a recognition that there is no basis for debate with those who want to control us. All NeverTrumpers achieve is providing the same ideological cover to Leftists that “moderate” Muslims do to jihadists. You both want the same conformity; they’re just open about what they’ll do to get it.
I have a relation who blames Trump for the recent school shootings. When asked if she blamed Obama for Ft. Hood, San Bernardino, and Sandy Hook, the result was a blank look.
She and others like her exist in one sense in social situations because they can say the most idiotic, bogus, accusatory things and everybody else knows not to “discuss” these things because she and others like her will get angry and personal. And she and others like her will not stop saying such things.
It’s not enough for others to not bring up such issues. You can’t avoid them because she and others like her will start.
It isn’t shunning if you have someplace else to be.
You were right: it is more left than right, but both. Liberals are more likely than conservatives to unfriend on FB because of politics. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2014/10/21/liberals-are-more-likely-to-unfriend-you-over-politics-online-and-off/?utm_term=.34568b23c779
I took a glance at Assistant’s link and find it rather curious, actually. It claims that 47% of “Consistently Conservative” Facebook users see posts that are mostly or always in line with their political views – the highest of all groups and significantly higher than the 32% of “Consistently Liberal” users (the second-highest). How is that even possible, unless you’ve friended three people, specifically for their congruent political views?
My FB friends include the usual suspects: a lot of my relatives and my husband’s relatives; a chunk of high school- and college-era friends; work colleagues; hobby-interest acquaintances; and assorted friends of friends. There are less than a dozen – from hundreds – of people that make conservative-viewpoint political posts with any regularity. My “liberal” friends literally can post about nothing else but lefty politics; there is no social punishment for doing so and in fact, there’s immense social pressure to preen and posture about their lefty politics in the right way, and often. It’s like every minute they have to continue to prove their lefty bona fides to each other. I’m sure I have more than six or seven conservative FB friends, but chances are, they, like me, keep their mouth shut on social media due to the hostile and increasingly dangerous environment for us.
I’m not everybody, but this starting premise of “consistently conservatives” seeing FB posts in line with their view significantly more than other viewpoints seems highly suspect.