Some of the mob were armed, there were vehicles found with bombs and high-powered rifles in them. There are recordings of people trying to hunt down the Vice President and Speaker of the house, presumably to assassinate them. It was a watershed event. I had thought Twitter would suspend Trump's account on Jan 21 but he forced their hand. They had no choice. — Wayfarer

The downside is that it kind of confirms the fears that Trump and his media lackeys have been stoking for months, and just when the Democrats are setting up shop. It confirms their fear of authoritarianism.

My goal is to figure out how someone boasting of sexually assaulting women is seen as charismatic, especially by women. That's a reduction of what I can't get my head around. — Kenosha Kid

It may help for you to find further clarity on whether your goal here is to understand, or reject.

Everyone is deep, deep, deep in to rejecting right now, for very understandable reasons. Given that this is already happening about a billion places in every form of media, it might be more interesting to shift the focus here to trying to understand.

Or not. To each their own is agreeable here.

So maybe try reading the question for comprehension and then answering it — tim wood

Better questions will be rewarded with better answers.

Let me rephrase, as I'm not expressing myself well. I know Trump thought his supporters to be fools. He said as much when he said he could shoot a randomer in the street and they would excuse it. I understand his awfulness; I don't understand why, hearing him say that, they agreed.

This seems rather vital to the fascist mindset, but it's difficult to empathise with someone who would say, "Yeah, if he shot someone at random I'd support that". It's an extremely common mindset so I would like to understand it, however evil it seems to me.

; I don't understand why, hearing him say that, they agreed — Kenosha Kid

Best explanation I have heard is the same reason why people watch the Kardashians or Trump himself in reality TV.

Trump has high status by the standards of the time. He is rich, he is famous and he has power - mostly the power to command media attention and make the left wing angry.

At the same time, his character is perhaps one of the least redeemable imaginable.

This juxtaposition of having higher status than almost every possible voter, while being a worse person than almost every voter creates a pull. He thereby gives voters the feeling that all the things they feel bad about and more importantly that they are told they should feel bad about, aren't.

One of the well known cognitive biases humans have is the halo effect. We equate high status with authority, including moral authority. So Trump is the equivalent of someone selling religious indulgences. Voting for him is like buying forgiveness for all those sins like racism, or homophobia, or nationalism.

Books that helped me understand the Trumpers at the beginning of his administration were works like https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strangers_in_Their_Own_Land

I hear you, we're all struggling to understand this phenomena.

The best I can do for now is to try to draw a line between 1) the decision to vote for a particular candidate, and 2) the concerns which lead us to consider radical alternatives to the status quo.

Considering radical alternatives may be rational if the status quo is sick enough. But choosing a particular radical alternative may indeed be irrational.

What I'm floating for consideration is a notion that while Trump voters may be stupid in their choice of a particular candidate, their grasp of how sick the American political system is may exceed our own. It may not be as simple as they are stupid and we are sensible. We can at least explore a theory that the system is sick enough that a decision to roll the dice was not entirely without merit.

In 2016 and 2020 voters faced a choice between very traditional candidates and a radical departure from the norm. Once the primaries were over there was no middle way choice. If one feels the system is very sick, voting for a radical departure may contain at least some element of rationality.

Imho, the phenomena is not limited to Republicans, as Bernie Sanders is a pretty radical departure from the norm too. One doesn't have to be a confederate states MAGA hat racist to come to the conclusion radical alternatives are now necessary. One can come to that conclusion as a liberal too.

One problem I see is that it's not going to be possible for Bernie voters to win over Trump voters to more sensible radical solutions so long as we are focused on yelling about how stupid Trump voters are. If we're serious, we'll stop doing that, and look for common ground. If we're not serious, then we are stupid too, and that will be our common ground.

Let me rephrase, as I'm not expressing myself well. I know Trump thought his supporters to be fools. He said as much when he said he could shoot a randomer in the street and they would excuse it. I understand his awfulness; I don't understand why, hearing him say that, they agreed. — Kenosha Kid

I am a greedy, lazy, dishonest miserable, angry, self-centred, racist, sexist loser. Trump represents me; he tells me he is like me, and is on my side, he makes like we are the virtuous people and anyone who supports minorities and women and children is a whining communist who wants to stop us being good old American assholes.

It only took a year and a half for Big Tech to move from banning Alex Jones to banning the president of the United States. This development should be concerning for those who are adult enough to curate their own information. At any rate, I'll never doubt the slippery slope again.

During that time Biden threatened Facebook with repealing section 230 on the basis that they are "propagating falsehoods they know to be false", much of which turned out to reflect badly him. So it's no wonder that, after all their censorship, Facebook insiders, lobbyists, and former executives began appearing in the Biden transition team. The rest of Big Tech, including some of Washington's biggest lobbyists, immediately cued in. I guess we now know that any bipartisan efforts to break up Big Tech are DOA, anyway. Who would evoke the Sherman act against their own monopoly?

That's just the digital coup, but it will dovetail into the real one, which is the Democrat's new pressing efforts to erase Trump's presidency and to bar outright his political resurgence. I assume we'll observe all feats of rhetorical magic as they elevate an arbitrary violation of a Twitter policy to the level of high crime and misdemeanor.

I'll never doubt the slippery slope again. — NOS4A2

There you have it, all the Trumpian media lackeys are saying it.

All the anti-Trump lackeys are cheering it on.

I am a greedy, lazy, dishonest miserable, angry, self-centred, racist, sexist loser. Trump represents me; he tells me he is like me, and is on my side, he makes like we are the virtuous people and anyone who supports minorities and women and children is a whining communist who wants to stop us being good old American assholes. — unenlightened

There's a LOT of us. I mean them. This explanation -- and I'm not dismissing it -- gives weight to a great gulf between two very different kinds of people. It neatly legitimises the kind of visceral reaction someone like me has toward someone like NOS4A2, although just because it's conveniently neat, doesn't mean it's incorrect. But there aren't really two kinds of people. Ultimately, people like myself and counterpunch have more in common than we have in difference: straight white male Englishmen born in the 20th century. And yet I cannot empathise with him in the way that, say, I could empathise with a drug dealer or even a paedophile.

Books that helped me understand the Trumpers at the beginning of his administration were works like https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strangers_in_Their_Own_Land — praxis

Thanks, I'll look into that.

The bayou area has a high concentration of petrochemical plants as well as a high level of pollution in its waterways. Hochschild wanted to understand why there was little support for environmental regulation in this area, despite what would seem to be the self-interest of its residents.

Maybe Trump is a symptom of chemical poisoning caused by pollution.

Imho, the phenomena is not limited to Republicans, as Bernie Sanders is a pretty radical departure from the norm too. One doesn't have to be a confederate states MAGA hat racist to come to the conclusion radical alternatives are now necessary. One can come to that conclusion as a liberal too. — Hippyhead

Right, and that supports my feeling that this is a dead end. I like Bernie Sanders a lot. As a Brit, voting for him is not an issue for me, but pretending I'm an American citizen for a moment, if he went into on television saying that Mexicans were rapists or there was a leak of him treating women purely as sex objects or he boasted he could shoot someone and get away as a positive thing, it wouldn't matter what his policies were, I'd never endorse a person that foul. Quite the opposite, I would vocally oppose him.

For right-wingers, this sort of thing seems to be a total non-issue. Trump is right: he could shoot a soccer mom and they'd just say she was an Antifa terrorist. That's what I don't get. Trump is not secretly vile; he is proudly vile and they love him for it.

So maybe try reading the question for comprehension and then answering it
— tim wood
Better questions will be rewarded with better answers. — Hippyhead

And here is Hippyhead. Asked a civil question, he lied in answering. On being called on it, you see his evasion above. His just a barely polite, "F*** you!" And no reason for it.

Being myself pretty good with words in an amateur sort of way, I can be clearer. Fuck you, Hippyhead. You're revealed as a liar and a troll. All others take note, for what it's worth.

This juxtaposition of having higher status than almost every possible voter, while being a worse person than almost every voter creates a pull. — Echarmion

This is interesting, and quite compelling.

He thereby gives voters the feeling that all the things they feel bad about and more importantly that they are told they should feel bad about, aren't. — Echarmion

Yes, it seems difficult to avoid this point, also made by unenlightened, that ultimately his racism is attractive because they are racists, his misogyny attractive because they are misogynists, his irresponsibility attractive because they are irresponsible. And after decades of being made to feel bad about this, along comes this person who exemplifies and therefore exonerates them.

I said to unenlightened that this seems all too convenient for left-wingers like myself, because we can legitimately say that Trump's fanbase is a bunch of backward, evil tosspots who are therefore attracted to a backward, evil tosspot who says they're backwardness and evil is actually great. It's good versus evil with no nuance. Which doesn't mean it's not true, but...

It only took a year and a half for Big Tech to move from banning Alex Jones to banning the president of the United States. — NOS4A2

And this their exact right under the First Amendment of the US Constitution. Further, there is a marketplace response to vicious lies - though admittedly sometimes slow. And this all fair and orderly in the society we claim to be. Do you have any complaint? What would you prefer?

But there aren't really two kinds of people. — Kenosha Kid

No, there aren't. But there are two directions one can be going as a person - upwards or downwards. Everyone is swimming or sinking. And to anyone who is sinking, it is great to hear that that way lies salvation. I think that is always the appeal of the demagogue, to the basest instincts, flattering the weak that they are strong rather than challenging them to become stronger, and so on.

Of course it’s their right. That doesn’t mean it is right. In fact it’s wrong. Yes, I have massive complaints about this and most censorship.

Yes, it seems difficult to avoid this point, also made by unenlightened, that ultimately his racism is attractive because they are racists, his misogyny attractive because they are misogynists, his irresponsibility attractive because they are irresponsible. And after decades of being made to feel bad about this, along comes this person who exemplifies and therefore exonerates them. — Kenosha Kid

I think it's not just that. It's also that, in our world and perhaps especially in America, the standards projected by media (and politicians - often falsely) are often far removed from the standards you can reasonably expect someone to uphold. You get constantly bombarded by incredibly beautiful people who appear to lead incredibly fulfilling lives all while being woke on race, helping poor children in Africa and only eating organic, ethically produced food.

If you're scraping along on the edge of poverty in some area culturally very removed from any of this, it doesn't take a particularily viscious person to develop a whole lot of resentment.

Turns out Arnold had something to say:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mz3zFsTp2Pk

Who knew!?

Of course it’s their right. That doesn’t mean it is right. In fact it’s wrong. Yes, I have massive complaints about this and most censorship. — NOS4A2

How under right do you make someone else publish your words? A free press includes the freedom to publish and the freedom not to publish. And no one is censoring these people; they can say and publish themselves what they like.

How under right do you make someone else publish your words? A free press includes the freedom to publish and the freedom not to publish. And no one is censoring these people; they can say and publish themselves what they like.

People are being censored by giant monopolies for specious reasons, and oddly enough, some of these monopolies have former executives and lobbyists within the opposing party. Of course people can go elsewhere, but “elsewhere” is becoming increasingly narrow. Parler, a competitor, was denied services for the same specious reasons.

Indeed, and I would censor you if I could. But I cannot, because that is not how it works. And you are manifestly confused about how it works. Now, I asked you a direct question which you ignored (not the first time). Again:

How under right do you make someone else publish your words? — tim wood

In the US, you cannot.

And I will point out something for your consideration: you object to private persons choosing not to publish material they did not want to publish - no censorship at all. Trump on the other hand, did actively censor wherever and whenever he could and cared to.
.

I know you would. You’re a censor. And yes, you can censor me in a variety of ways.

These are tech companies, not publishers, Tim. Your question is a stupid one.

This seems rather vital to the fascist mindset, but it's difficult to empathise with someone who would say, "Yeah, if he shot someone at random I'd support that". It's an extremely common mindset so I would like to understand it, however evil it seems to me. — Kenosha Kid

Perhaps start from jokes done with bad taste?

All the anti-Trump lackeys are cheering it on. — NOS4A2

I was trying to think of left-wing anti-Trump lackeys (meaning Biden lackeys?) that were comparable to Hannity, Tucker Carlson, Judge Jeanine, Shapiro, Rush Limbaugh, Alex Jones, etc. and came up with a video from The Young Turks.



They do indeed celebrate it and are unconcerned about a slippery slope.

Anti-Trump lackey’s would not be limited to the left-wing. There are plenty on the right as well. Odd bedfellows. But thanks for the video.

I was trying to think of left-wing anti-Trump lackeys (meaning Biden lackeys?) that were comparable to Hannity, Tucker Carlson, Judge Jeanine, Shapiro, Rush Limbaugh, Alex Jones, etc. and came up with a video from The Young Turks. — praxis

Good example. I remember Dave Rubin was part of the TYT team and then left them. Of course now Rubin went all in with Trump and sided with the election fraud argument, which just tells how difficult it is for these political commentators not to slide down the slippery slope themselves.

The worst of course are the conspiracy-buffs like Alex Jones. They don't believe in any way there being impartial journalism and they themselves push the most classical propaganda ever once they side with something.

I think the best way is to simply listen to them as you listen to RT or other news media. They are journalists, and when covering some third nation / third party stuff they do their job applying good journalism. Yet when the issue is Putin or Russia or things on Putin's agenda, they won't utter any criticism and will very smartly promote the agenda. Similarly Al Jazeera English is a great news channel from the Middle East, if you just remember that any story about Qatar or that has a Qatari agenda won't be impartial.

Anti-Trump lackey’s would not be limited to the left-wing. There are plenty on the right as well. — NOS4A2

Who are they the lackey’s of?

Trump’s Legacy: Voters Who Reject Democracy and Any Politics but Their Own — Wayfarer

(y)

I guess there are different ways to protest...

• Baton Rouge killing: Black Lives Matter protest photo hailed as 'legendary' (Jul 2016)
• Protests in Minneapolis and across the US following the death of George Floyd (May 2020)
• 'I am notoriously naked': Portland protester dubbed 'Naked Athena' is revealed as a sex worker in her 30s who says her face-off with police was unplanned (Jul 2020) :D
• The Story Behind Banksy (Feb 2013)
• Flower Power (photograph) (Oct 1967)

As far as I can tell, the 1960s movement did have impact throughout the West, for better or worse.
This is different:

• Holy Hate: The Far Right’s Radicalization of Religion (Feb 2018)
• Some of the Most Visible Christians in America Are Failing the Coronavirus Test (Apr 2020)

With a large growth in readily available (dis-mis-mal-)information, demagoguery, and confirmation bias, the stage is set.
I (personally) tend to run with free expression - combat crap with more free speech.
The dark side thereof is now on display.
By the way, has Pompeo made any statements or something? (haven't seen anything myself)

It's also that, in our world and perhaps especially in America, the standards projected by media (and politicians - often falsely) are often far removed from the standards you can reasonably expect someone to uphold. You get constantly bombarded by incredibly beautiful people who appear to lead incredibly fulfilling lives all while being woke on race, helping poor children in Africa and only eating organic, ethically produced food.

If you're scraping along on the edge of poverty in some area culturally very removed from any of this, it doesn't take a particularily viscious person to develop a whole lot of resentment. — Echarmion

It's odd, though, isn't it that they are inspired by a man born into extreme wealth who feels like he alone should get what he wants at the expense of others, a man with the power to make his immediate world exactly as he likes it by firing anyone who brings him facts that differ from that projected world. If people were fed up with feeling poor and powerless, how does Trump of all people become their figurehead? Meanwhile there are people out there who have spent their lives campaigning to reduce the very gap you speak of, but these voters wouldn't touch them with a barge pole.

I guess the thing is that Trump voters aren't after betterment of the lives of the poor because that would include poor black people, poor hispanic people, poor women, poor gay people, poor Muslims, poor atheists... The Capitol coup was incredibly WHITE considering it wasn't a race issue. I wonder if it's not just that poor people have some Nietzchean resentment toward the projected ideal, but these white people in particular believe that they are owed it, and decades of attempted social reform followed by attempted regression have left them feeling they've been owed it for a very long time, entire lifetimes of generations passing on the IOU. Meanwhile their out-groups have seemed to receive increases: civil rights, feminism, gay rights, trans rights. These people are trying to get to where white men are at but white men see it as a concession: we are losing and those are gaining.

Or something. I don't know, I'm just guessing. But it's a narrative that fits the main story points: hatred of minorities, hatred of immigrants, hatred of any kind of difference, love of someone who also hates those things and promises to be different (a promise he kept to be fair).