Could we avoid this kind of violent rhetoric? It goes against the goals of Tildes and, quite frankly, it's a large part of why I left reddit. While I am of an anti-Trump sentiment as well, this...
[Redacted: Out of respect for @deadaluspark's redaction of his earlier heated comment and polite response to having it pointed out, I've removed that content from my own comment.]
Could we avoid this kind of violent rhetoric? It goes against the goals of Tildes and, quite frankly, it's a large part of why I left reddit. While I am of an anti-Trump sentiment as well, this kind of rhetoric is toxic and unproductive.
Also, fuck the New York Times for acting like some piece of shit celebrating how much we got for the military is in any way something normal people aren't like "What the living fuck are you talking about? My family is stuffering."
This isn't a New York Times piece celebrating anything. It's an opinion piece, one which NYT decided to publish because they believe it's an important alternative perspective. It's not like they've written up an official news article covering and supporting this point of view.
Thank you for saying this. I know it's easy to think that our words don't matter, especially nowadays when there are so many words floating around, but they do have an impact on our own souls if...
Thank you for saying this. I know it's easy to think that our words don't matter, especially nowadays when there are so many words floating around, but they do have an impact on our own souls if nothing else. Wanting someone to die is not something we should give into easily.
It wasn't until I came to Tildes that I realized just how harmful the rhetoric on reddit was. When I peek at the comments there, I honestly feel more tense and stressed out. It's not healthy. So...
It wasn't until I came to Tildes that I realized just how harmful the rhetoric on reddit was. When I peek at the comments there, I honestly feel more tense and stressed out. It's not healthy. So I've really come to appreciate the community here and how things aren't quite as bad. There have been some tense moments here, but they're comparatively few and far between. I want to encourage that civility where I can and try to preserve the good parts of Tildes for as long as reasonably possible.
You're absolutely right. That's why I chose to speak up, while also keeping to that ideal of civility myself when doing so. Had the response to my comment been a negative one, I would have...
You're absolutely right. That's why I chose to speak up, while also keeping to that ideal of civility myself when doing so. Had the response to my comment been a negative one, I would have escalated the issue to Deimos without further engaging (that's not something I would ordinarily do, but defending violent rhetoric is something I wouldn't hesitate to report).
I can only hope that others would handle the situation in a similar manner, not allowing the thread to spiral into further incivility. All I can do is try to lead by example.
Thanks. I'm just looking at this thread for the first time now and I was in the middle of debating whether I should remove your comment because it's, uh... over-the-top, to put it mildly. I'd...
You know, I had just returned to my computer thinking the same thing. Edits incoming.
Thanks. I'm just looking at this thread for the first time now and I was in the middle of debating whether I should remove your comment because it's, uh... over-the-top, to put it mildly. I'd appreciate it if you could edit it into something more reasonable.
Thank you. I appreciate it. I will be sure to redact anything you edit out from my own comment accordingly. I completely agree. That being said, I also believe that there are several important...
You know, I had just returned to my computer thinking the same thing. Edits incoming.
Thank you. I appreciate it. I will be sure to redact anything you edit out from my own comment accordingly.
It's a perspective that has exceptional hold on our government, and yet sees fit to desire a larger audience to speak to, despite all the control they and theirs already hold. it's laughable, is what it is.
I completely agree. That being said, I also believe that there are several important justifications for allowing a short opinion piece despite that. Among them is that it's important to continue pushing the narrative that everything that's going on isn't normal, cannot be allowed to become normal, and must be resisted by everyone, including the Republican party. It also important not to completely silence conservative voices, otherwise we run the very real risk of turning legitimate news networks into propaganda networks, whether in practice or in perception.
Put differently: News articles should remain factual and decline to give voice to rhetoric that is divorced from reality. Opinion pieces, on the other hand, must tread a very different line, one which favors a wider range of viewpoints but is careful not to normalize harmful ones. In the event that harmful viewpoints are becoming the norm, it's far better to temporarily normalize harmful viewpoints that you normally wouldn't in order reject the more extreme rhetoric and drive the norm back toward the center.
It's the unfortunate result of our current political environment. Everyone is currently in damage control mode, trying to prevent things from getting worse.
Many people don't seem to understand how newspapers were and are a platform for public debate. NYT doesn't have to agree with any opinion on their opinion page for them to publish it. If the...
This isn't a New York Times piece celebrating anything. It's an opinion piece, one which NYT decided to publish because they believe it's an important alternative perspective.
Many people don't seem to understand how newspapers were and are a platform for public debate. NYT doesn't have to agree with any opinion on their opinion page for them to publish it. If the author or the content or both are newsworthy, or if it's important to the public debate, or if it's important to get something into the public record, they print it.
In some ways it's Facebook before the internet, with quality control and heavy selection because of the limitations of paper.
It's not like they've written up an official news article covering and supporting this point of view.
Indeed. If it were an opinion piece by the editorial board - like this for example - it would be a different matter.
Thank you, I honestly don't think I could have articulated these points as well as you have here. Your example of an opinion piece by the editorial board to contrast the op-ed being discussed is...
Thank you, I honestly don't think I could have articulated these points as well as you have here. Your example of an opinion piece by the editorial board to contrast the op-ed being discussed is particularly helpful.
For the sake of expanding on this, I think it's important for people to understand the difference between an "editorial" and an "op-ed" or "opposite the editorial page", as well as perhaps some of the history surrounding them.
https://twitter.com/danbl00m/status/1037428190166347776 The twitter sequence contains more examples, including ones that pre-date Pence's use of his current speech-writer.
"It's fucking Mike Pence or someone trying to make it sound like Mike Pence"
We may no longer have Senator McCain. But we will always have his example — a lodestar for restoring honor to public life and our national dialogue. Mr. Trump may fear such honorable men, but we should revere them.
The word is "LODESTAR." Note that it comes in the same paragraph praising John McCain. That would rule out flame-throwers like Stephen Miller and Dan Scavino and suggest someone with Senate ties. This reveal is not going to take long.
"Lodestar" just seems like an unusual word to use in general, not to mention in an op-ed that's going to be widely read. It has this whiff of sanctimony. So I search for John Kelly and James Mattis ever having used the word "lodestar." Nothing. But then an example pops up of Vice President Mike Pence using the word "lodestar" in a speech at the UN in September 2017.
The Vice President concluded his remarks with a call for renewed dedication to the United Nations' mission.
“So let us rededicate ourselves to the mission upon which this body was founded -- the first words of the U.N. Charter, “to maintain international peace,” must again be our lodestar, our ideal, and our aspiration.
Two months later, Vice President Mike Pence speaks at the Jack Kemp Leadership Award Dinner. He drops "lodestar" again.
Jack’s lodestar was his unwavering belief in the fundamental equality and dignity of every person. It inspired everything that he stood for. And whether he was speaking in front of a large group, or whether he was just stopping you on a street corner, you heard all about it every time you talked to Jack Kemp. (Laughter.)
Two more months later (like clockwork,) February 2018. Vice President Mike Pence speaking in Tokyo, alongside Japanese PM Shinzo Abe. Place your bets... another "lodestar."
But we will not repeat the mistakes of the past. As President Trump has said, “Past experience has taught us that complacency and concessions only invite aggression and provocation.” And so vigilance and resolve will be our lodestar.
The twitter sequence contains more examples, including ones that pre-date Pence's use of his current speech-writer.
This article in Business Insider about the "lodestar" connection to Pence mentions that some staffers have specifically said they try to copy other people's idioms to muddy the waters:
This article in Business Insider about the "lodestar" connection to Pence mentions that some staffers have specifically said they try to copy other people's idioms to muddy the waters:
But it has also been reported in the past that staffers who give the press anonymous quotes sometimes use idioms or phrases often employed by other members of the Trump administration to throw the president off.
"To cover my tracks, I usually pay attention to other staffers' idioms and use that in my background quotes. That throws the scent off me," a White House official told Axios in May.
I feel like that makes sense. Combined with Representative Gutierrez's letter: , it seems that things are shifting. I've been wondering what kind of Game of Thrones, House of Cards type shit is...
...Vice President Mike Pence, with whom I served in this body, is someone I disagree with on almost every issue of importance, especially his offensive views on homosexuality, women’s rights, abortion, race relations, immigration and almost everything else.
But, by comparison, he is an honorable man. Even if he is wrong on many, many policy issues, he has a basic sense of right and wrong that is lacking in the current occupant of the office.
Therefore, while I do not relish a Pence presidency, at this point I feel it is an absolute necessity for the good of the country, for the good of our people and for the good of the world and America’s place in it.
Mr. Speaker, in my letter, I humbly ask – as a proud American, a patriot and public servant, a dad, granddad and a fellow human being – I ask the President to resign immediately.
Please resign and spare the nation from this ongoing nightmare. Don’t do this to us. Don’t make us go down with you. Step aside, sir, for the good of your country and the world.
, it seems that things are shifting.
I've been wondering what kind of Game of Thrones, House of Cards type shit is going on behind closed doors. As we approach midterms, as Mueller and SDNY close in on President Trump and his associates, it makes sense for the Vice President to set himself up for succession. Trump is an anchor, dragging down the GOP. They would be best off cutting him loose. The trick is to avoid his base losing their minds. It could be that the GOP is sensing Trump's downfall and are making a move to hold on to what they have. It would be in their best interest to have a President Pence, I think. Gutierrez is, IMO, signalling that a President Pence is something the Democrats would tolerate.
Oh I think Pence is absolutely a reprehensible human being, and compromised in some way—being selected by former campaign chairman and convicted felon, Paul Manafort. But look at things...
Oh I think Pence is absolutely a reprehensible human being, and compromised in some way—being selected by former campaign chairman and convicted felon, Paul Manafort.
But look at things strategically. The Democrats are likely to take the House in November, and have a chance to get a Simple Majority in the Senate as well. That would be devastating to the Administration. Trump is a lightning rod of scandal. He has shown himself to be loyal to no entity other than himself, and would have no qualms burning the world to save himself. With Trump out of the Presidency, him and his associates will be eaten alive by prosecutors on State charges at least. It would also take the heat off of the White House, and remove the spotlight from the goings-on of the Administration, as the media would undoubtedly focus on Trump and his mess.
A Democratic majority in one or both Chambers would be able to act as a check on a Pence Presidency. He wouldn't be able to enact whatever horrid shit he wanted. If the Democrats got a majority in the Senate as well as the House, Pence would be able to do very little indeed. Gutierrez might be signalling that trading Trump for Pence would be agreeable enough to not go after him politically. Cut out the cancer, and let the Administration save some face. If the Democrats go after the Administration too hard—even if it's justified and they're able—that could backfire for them politically in 2020 and beyond. The opinions and actions of The People moving forward are very unpredictable, and could be dangerous if we don't solve this problem in an intelligent way.
Allowing some complicit parties to walk might be the better option. Especially if they're a lame duck with only a partial Presidency.
That's a good point. If the Dems do well in the midterms, I'll re-evaluate.
A Democratic majority in one or both Chambers would be able to act as a check on a Pence Presidency. He wouldn't be able to enact whatever horrid shit he wanted. If the Democrats got a majority in the Senate as well as the House, Pence would be able to do very little indeed.
That's a good point. If the Dems do well in the midterms, I'll re-evaluate.
I'm glad I'm not alone in how angry this post makes me. People are sharing it on Facebook like it's a good thing. Assuming this is an honest piece and not some larger play: instead of admitting...
I'm glad I'm not alone in how angry this post makes me. People are sharing it on Facebook like it's a good thing.
Assuming this is an honest piece and not some larger play: instead of admitting their mistake in backing him, they're trying to insulate us from his worst thoughts and impulses? It's the height of selfishness. They are not fighting for our country within this corrupt administration, they're fighting to save face, and for some stupid reason, they're telling us about it! If they were really about this "free minds... free people" bullshit, they would be telling us to get rid of this dangerous idiot.
This is really incredible. I know this just happened, but if this is really coming from a senior White House official, it's hard to see it as anything but the clearest sign yet of the impending...
This is really incredible. I know this just happened, but if this is really coming from a senior White House official, it's hard to see it as anything but the clearest sign yet of the impending collapse of this administration. I can't think of another reason that such a person would publish this, except as a way to indemnify themselves against the fallout. If Trump finds out who it is while he's still president (and I imagine it will be hard to keep it a secret for long), he'll surely purge them from the position from which they are supposedly doing good work to protect the country. This seems to me like someone bracing for impact.
The author of the anonymous op-ed is hoping to vindicate the reputation of like-minded senior Trump staffers. See, we only look complicit! Actually, we’re the real heroes of the story.
But what the author has just done is throw the government of the United States into even more dangerous turmoil. He or she has enflamed the paranoia of the president and empowered the president’s willfulness.
What happens the next time a staffer seeks to dissuade the president from, say, purging the Justice Department to shut down the Mueller investigation? The author of the Times op-ed has explicitly told the president that those who offer such advice do not have the president’s best interests at heart, and are, in fact, actively subverting his best interests as he understands them on behalf of ideas of their own.
He’ll grow more defiant, more reckless, more anti-constitutional, and more dangerous.
And those who do not quit or are not fired in the next few days will have to work even more assiduously to prove themselves loyal, obedient, and on the team. Things will be worse after this piece. They will be worse because of this piece.
It doesn't make much sense which is why I suspect it's fake (somewhat unlikely as it would be a huge fuckup on the Times's part) or that it's part of some more complicated political play. The only...
It doesn't make much sense which is why I suspect it's fake (somewhat unlikely as it would be a huge fuckup on the Times's part) or that it's part of some more complicated political play. The only way it makes sense in isolation is if they actually are close to invoking the 25th and are trying to get it into the overton window and / or shore up support for president Pence.
The word treason is thrown around far too casually these days. From the Constitution, Article III, Section 3: The law itself, as passed by Congress, United States Code at 18 U.S.C. § 238: So no,...
The word treason is thrown around far too casually these days.
From the Constitution, Article III, Section 3:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
The law itself, as passed by Congress, United States Code at 18 U.S.C. § 238:
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
Seems to me like it's an effort by the GOP to save face. If things really fall apart for them, they can say 'no, it's not the GOP, many of us were working on the inside all the time.' It's a hedge...
Seems to me like it's an effort by the GOP to save face. If things really fall apart for them, they can say 'no, it's not the GOP, many of us were working on the inside all the time.' It's a hedge bet for the Party, in case Trump goes too far.
All of this discussion belies the facts - that the U.S. is effectively governed by a military/administrative junta, that the Republican Party is colluding in the fiction that we have a...
All of this discussion belies the facts - that the U.S. is effectively governed by a military/administrative junta, that the Republican Party is colluding in the fiction that we have a constitutional head of state as long as their preferred agenda is rubber-stamped, and that democracy is in tatters in this country.
I love this phrase! It's almost poetic. I foresee Trump simultaneously dismissing this as "fake news", while also launching an attack against the New York Times to find out who wrote this opinion...
This isn’t the work of the so-called deep state. It’s the work of the steady state.
I love this phrase! It's almost poetic.
I foresee Trump simultaneously dismissing this as "fake news", while also launching an attack against the New York Times to find out who wrote this opinion piece. There's no way he would let what he would see as a personal betrayal go unpunished.
Could we avoid this kind of violent rhetoric? It goes against the goals of Tildes and, quite frankly, it's a large part of why I left reddit. While I am of an anti-Trump sentiment as well, this kind of rhetoric is toxic and unproductive.
This isn't a New York Times piece celebrating anything. It's an opinion piece, one which NYT decided to publish because they believe it's an important alternative perspective. It's not like they've written up an official news article covering and supporting this point of view.
Thank you for saying this. I know it's easy to think that our words don't matter, especially nowadays when there are so many words floating around, but they do have an impact on our own souls if nothing else. Wanting someone to die is not something we should give into easily.
It wasn't until I came to Tildes that I realized just how harmful the rhetoric on reddit was. When I peek at the comments there, I honestly feel more tense and stressed out. It's not healthy. So I've really come to appreciate the community here and how things aren't quite as bad. There have been some tense moments here, but they're comparatively few and far between. I want to encourage that civility where I can and try to preserve the good parts of Tildes for as long as reasonably possible.
I think if this place is going to be anywhere near the ideals set out, users are going to have to insist on it.
You're absolutely right. That's why I chose to speak up, while also keeping to that ideal of civility myself when doing so. Had the response to my comment been a negative one, I would have escalated the issue to Deimos without further engaging (that's not something I would ordinarily do, but defending violent rhetoric is something I wouldn't hesitate to report).
I can only hope that others would handle the situation in a similar manner, not allowing the thread to spiral into further incivility. All I can do is try to lead by example.
Thanks. I'm just looking at this thread for the first time now and I was in the middle of debating whether I should remove your comment because it's, uh... over-the-top, to put it mildly. I'd appreciate it if you could edit it into something more reasonable.
Definitely much better, thank you.
Thank you. I appreciate it. I will be sure to redact anything you edit out from my own comment accordingly.
I completely agree. That being said, I also believe that there are several important justifications for allowing a short opinion piece despite that. Among them is that it's important to continue pushing the narrative that everything that's going on isn't normal, cannot be allowed to become normal, and must be resisted by everyone, including the Republican party. It also important not to completely silence conservative voices, otherwise we run the very real risk of turning legitimate news networks into propaganda networks, whether in practice or in perception.
Put differently: News articles should remain factual and decline to give voice to rhetoric that is divorced from reality. Opinion pieces, on the other hand, must tread a very different line, one which favors a wider range of viewpoints but is careful not to normalize harmful ones. In the event that harmful viewpoints are becoming the norm, it's far better to temporarily normalize harmful viewpoints that you normally wouldn't in order reject the more extreme rhetoric and drive the norm back toward the center.
It's the unfortunate result of our current political environment. Everyone is currently in damage control mode, trying to prevent things from getting worse.
Many people don't seem to understand how newspapers were and are a platform for public debate. NYT doesn't have to agree with any opinion on their opinion page for them to publish it. If the author or the content or both are newsworthy, or if it's important to the public debate, or if it's important to get something into the public record, they print it.
In some ways it's Facebook before the internet, with quality control and heavy selection because of the limitations of paper.
Indeed. If it were an opinion piece by the editorial board - like this for example - it would be a different matter.
An interesting aspect of this that a NYT investigative reporter remarked on:
Thank you, I honestly don't think I could have articulated these points as well as you have here. Your example of an opinion piece by the editorial board to contrast the op-ed being discussed is particularly helpful.
For the sake of expanding on this, I think it's important for people to understand the difference between an "editorial" and an "op-ed" or "opposite the editorial page", as well as perhaps some of the history surrounding them.
He'd like to work for a shitty Republican President, but not, you know, a shitty Republican President.
https://twitter.com/danbl00m/status/1037428190166347776
The twitter sequence contains more examples, including ones that pre-date Pence's use of his current speech-writer.
Yup, "lodestar" jumped out at me too. Could be Pence, could be a head fake ... who knows? (besides the author and the NYT editorial board, that is).
This article in Business Insider about the "lodestar" connection to Pence mentions that some staffers have specifically said they try to copy other people's idioms to muddy the waters:
I feel like that makes sense. Combined with Representative Gutierrez's letter:
, it seems that things are shifting.
I've been wondering what kind of Game of Thrones, House of Cards type shit is going on behind closed doors. As we approach midterms, as Mueller and SDNY close in on President Trump and his associates, it makes sense for the Vice President to set himself up for succession. Trump is an anchor, dragging down the GOP. They would be best off cutting him loose. The trick is to avoid his base losing their minds. It could be that the GOP is sensing Trump's downfall and are making a move to hold on to what they have. It would be in their best interest to have a President Pence, I think. Gutierrez is, IMO, signalling that a President Pence is something the Democrats would tolerate.
I hope not. He's a dominionist who would be really bad for many of us, and more effective than Trump in advancing his agenda.
Oh I think Pence is absolutely a reprehensible human being, and compromised in some way—being selected by former campaign chairman and convicted felon, Paul Manafort.
But look at things strategically. The Democrats are likely to take the House in November, and have a chance to get a Simple Majority in the Senate as well. That would be devastating to the Administration. Trump is a lightning rod of scandal. He has shown himself to be loyal to no entity other than himself, and would have no qualms burning the world to save himself. With Trump out of the Presidency, him and his associates will be eaten alive by prosecutors on State charges at least. It would also take the heat off of the White House, and remove the spotlight from the goings-on of the Administration, as the media would undoubtedly focus on Trump and his mess.
A Democratic majority in one or both Chambers would be able to act as a check on a Pence Presidency. He wouldn't be able to enact whatever horrid shit he wanted. If the Democrats got a majority in the Senate as well as the House, Pence would be able to do very little indeed. Gutierrez might be signalling that trading Trump for Pence would be agreeable enough to not go after him politically. Cut out the cancer, and let the Administration save some face. If the Democrats go after the Administration too hard—even if it's justified and they're able—that could backfire for them politically in 2020 and beyond. The opinions and actions of The People moving forward are very unpredictable, and could be dangerous if we don't solve this problem in an intelligent way.
Allowing some complicit parties to walk might be the better option. Especially if they're a lame duck with only a partial Presidency.
That's a good point. If the Dems do well in the midterms, I'll re-evaluate.
I'm glad I'm not alone in how angry this post makes me. People are sharing it on Facebook like it's a good thing.
Assuming this is an honest piece and not some larger play: instead of admitting their mistake in backing him, they're trying to insulate us from his worst thoughts and impulses? It's the height of selfishness. They are not fighting for our country within this corrupt administration, they're fighting to save face, and for some stupid reason, they're telling us about it! If they were really about this "free minds... free people" bullshit, they would be telling us to get rid of this dangerous idiot.
This is really incredible. I know this just happened, but if this is really coming from a senior White House official, it's hard to see it as anything but the clearest sign yet of the impending collapse of this administration. I can't think of another reason that such a person would publish this, except as a way to indemnify themselves against the fallout. If Trump finds out who it is while he's still president (and I imagine it will be hard to keep it a secret for long), he'll surely purge them from the position from which they are supposedly doing good work to protect the country. This seems to me like someone bracing for impact.
I don't see what this person gains from publishing this. It is certain to make their work a lot harder, now that Trump is aware of it.
I linked it above already, but that's exactly what this response article says:
It doesn't make much sense which is why I suspect it's fake (somewhat unlikely as it would be a huge fuckup on the Times's part) or that it's part of some more complicated political play. The only way it makes sense in isolation is if they actually are close to invoking the 25th and are trying to get it into the overton window and / or shore up support for president Pence.
He certainly isn't happy about it.
And here are the tweets now:
The word treason is thrown around far too casually these days.
From the Constitution, Article III, Section 3:
The law itself, as passed by Congress, United States Code at 18 U.S.C. § 238:
So no, not treason, plain and simple.
Maybe they're hoping this will accelerate impeachment so they can have President Pence.
Seems to me like it's an effort by the GOP to save face. If things really fall apart for them, they can say 'no, it's not the GOP, many of us were working on the inside all the time.' It's a hedge bet for the Party, in case Trump goes too far.
All of this discussion belies the facts - that the U.S. is effectively governed by a military/administrative junta, that the Republican Party is colluding in the fiction that we have a constitutional head of state as long as their preferred agenda is rubber-stamped, and that democracy is in tatters in this country.
Outline.com link
I love this phrase! It's almost poetic.
I foresee Trump simultaneously dismissing this as "fake news", while also launching an attack against the New York Times to find out who wrote this opinion piece. There's no way he would let what he would see as a personal betrayal go unpunished.
I'm so glad the president doesn't read anything.
I think this is an interesting response article (from David Frum in The Atlantic): A Cowardly Coup Against Trump