SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
I'm posting this journal because I've read far too much violent rhetoric on this site and seen far too many people making excuses for this sort of behavior. The Civil War was more than a conflict between the Union and Confederate armies, and militia groups were responsible for many of the worst atrocities. I fear that many people are far too eager to see a repeat of this brutal and ugly conflict.
History books tend to describe the Civil War through a series of battles between the Union and Confederate armies. Although those battles certainly happened, they ignore a large part of the violence that took place.
Today, the rivalry between the Missouri Tigers and Kansas Jayhawks is one of the most bitter in all of college sports. Until the mid-2000s, the rivalry was officially referred to as the Border War. Although many rivalries use the word "war" in their names, this rivalry is unique in that much of the tradition around the rivalry traces its history to an actual war. Both the Tigers and Jayhawks are named for Civil War militia groups. The University of Kansas campus in Lawrence includes Mount Oread, which is a large hill where one militia group organized before burning Lawrence to the ground. To this day, this event is unofficially referenced by many fans.
Missouri and Kentucky were somewhat unique during the Civil War in that their government officially remained loyal to the Union while illegitimate shadow legislatures voted to secede. Slavery was legal in Missouri, but it is misleading to suggest that the state was uniformly loyal to the Confederacy. In fact, Saint Louis was a Union stronghold, as well as many other cities around the state such as Columbia.
The Old Courthouse in Saint Louis is the site of two trials where Dred and Harriet Scott sued for their freedom from slavery. In the first trial, their request was denied. They requested a retrial where they were awarded their freedom from Irene Emerson. Following the second verdict, Emerson appealed to the Missouri Supreme Court which overturned the circuit court decision and sent Dred and Harriet Scott back into slavery. The U.S. Supreme Court ultimately ruled in 1857 to deny freedom to Dred and Harriet Scott. This ruling also invalidated the Missouri Compromise, meaning that slave owners could continue to own slaves even after moving to states where slavery was illegal. Today, the Old Courthouse is maintained by the National Park Service and has exhibits about the Dred Scott case. I've visited the courtroom where Dred and Harriet Scott were initially awarded their freedom before higher courts ruled that they were the property of Emerson.
Much of the conflict in Missouri and Kansas was between militia groups. Some of these militia groups were organized to fortify and defend cities while many others roamed through the states committing acts of violence. Militia groups that supported the Confederacy were known as Bushwhackers. There were also militia groups that organized in Kansas in support of the Union, and they were known as Jayhawkers. Both the Bushwhackers and Jayhawkers were known for conducting brutal raids and engaging in lawlessness.
One well-known raid occurred in 1861 when James Lane organized a group of Jayhawkers to sack the town of Osceola in western Missouri. The town was burned to the ground, nine residents were court-martialed and executed, and 200 slaves were freed. Lane and his militia plundered from Osceola, stealing food and resources. The Jayhawkers were known for their brutality and were harshly criticized by Union commanders. In 1862, Union Major General Lorenzo Thomas wrote about Charles Jennison's group of Jayhawkers that they were "no better than a band of robbers; they cross the line, rob, steal, plunder, and burn whatever they can lay their hands upon. They disgrace the name and uniform of American soldiers and are driving good Union men into the ranks of the secession army."
One of the responses to Lane's raid was conducted by William Quantrill, a Bushwhacker who organized a group of raiders that included "Bloody Bill" Anderson to go into Kansas and attack the town of Lawrence. On a night in August 1863, a group of about 450 raiders organized near Mount Oread before entering Lawrence to burn it to the ground. Banks and stores were looted, 150 men and boys were killed, and the town was completely burned by the raiders. Prior to the raid, Quantrill compiled a list of people purported to be in Lawrence whom they planned to capture and execute, though some on the list such as James Lane successfully fled and avoided being put to death.
Jennison was also known for brutal raids in western Missouri, where his raiders devastated five counties. In many cases, all that was left from Jennison's attacks were stone chimneys known as Jennison monuments, where the houses had been burned to the ground and only the chimneys remained.
Many Bushwhackers not only conducted raids in Kansas but also against Union strongholds in Missouri. In September 1864, "Bloody Bill" Anderson and his group of Bushwhackers massacred the city of Centralia, which is located in central Missouri, about 15 miles northeast of Columbia. Anderson's band of raiders that attacked Centralia included Jesse James, who would go on to be a particularly famous outlaw. Concerned that Columbia would also be targeted by Bushwhackers, Congressman James Rollins organized a militia known as the Columbia Tigers in support of the Union to fortify the city and protect it against Bushwhacker raids. Anderson and his raiders never attacked Columbia, and the Tigers are often credited with discouraging Bushwhackers from raiding the city. As far as I can tell, history remembers the Tigers favorably, and unlike the other militia I've discussed, they were not associated with lawlessness and brutality.
Much of the conflict in Missouri and Kansas was not between the Union and Confederate armies, but between militia groups on both sides. Both the Bushwhackers and Jayhawkers were known for looting, arson, and mass murder. The conflict was much more complicated than Missouri being a slave state and fighting against Kansas, which was a free state. In fact, a significant portion of Missouri was loyal to the Union and faced many brutal raids by the same Bushwhacker militia groups that attacked Kansas.
Not all militia groups were associated with lawlessness, and some were organized by people protecting their homes and cities against raiders. However, many of these groups on both sides of the conflict were incredibly brutal and indiscriminately killed people. Although the Jayhawkers supported the Union, many of the atrocities they committed were just as horrible as the raiders conducted by Bushwhackers.
When modern militia groups stockpile weapons and prepare for combat, these are not necessarily idle threats. There is historical precedent in the Civil War of these militia groups looting, burning cities to the ground, and committing mass murder. Violent rhetoric is unacceptable, whether it's sarcastically calling for attacks on NRA leadership or wishing for the deaths of fifty million progressives. I have no problem with people using guns for self defense to protect themselves from being attacked by criminals. The problem is that there are many people and militia groups arming for war, and we should not treat this as an idle threat. If we're going to learn from history, we need to remember that the Civil War was incredibly brutal, and many of the worst atrocities were committed by militia groups using their political affiliation as an excuse to engage in lawlessness.
When people are stockpiling weapons, conducting paramilitary training, and promoting anti-government ideas, we would be fools to dismiss this as hyperbole. There is no place for violence or violent threats, serious or otherwise, in civilized society. I'm posting this because I'm very troubled by some of the awful comments and journals that have been posted here recently. I fear that many people are eager to repeat the atrocities of the Civil War, and none of us will benefit if that happens. This needs to stop.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by canopic jug on Tuesday May 09, @04:48AM (35 children)
There are five factors riling things up from what I can see. Trying to enlighten people about the education they missed in school only addresses point four below:
Each of these factors feed on each other and combine to make the situation far worse. Yes the goal seems to be to goad social control media users into launching violent uprisings. However, who gains? Where does the money lead?
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09, @06:06AM (6 children)
*cough* Voice of America.. We got 'em beat by a long shot. Where is the Soviet Union today?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Tuesday May 09, @06:10AM (3 children)
I do wonder what you think Voice of America does. I doubt it runs any farms of fake personas spreading similar quality news, but I guess some people expect that if Russia does something then somehow the US does it worse.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09, @06:44AM (1 child)
Why? They exist to spread American propaganda
Of course you do... But this time you're kinda right, the quality is much higher
This time you're wrong again. The US does it much better!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday May 10, @12:28PM
Which is just a bit you set. Like the percentage of chocolate in your candy or how old you are.
The allure of the wizened cynic, blind to any flaws in their argument. "The quality is much higher" means it's different. And perhaps you should look at the remarkable lack of linking to VoA articles in SN. I bet there's more linking to RT and other Russian propaganda sources than there is to VoA. There's not much point to complaining about a propaganda source nobody uses, right?
There's a simple fix to this, should your country be interested: rule of law, and mostly tell the truth. Russia just isn't doing well with that. US has its flaws, but as you say, it does it much better.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09, @11:04AM
Death to khallow, and his recondrite views! Jesus and Justice demands it.
(Score: 0, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09, @08:37PM
Highly biased moderator there. Must be the Kremlin's fault, right? To the rational person, a direct response to what was said is not "offtopic"..
(Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday May 11, @05:00PM
Call me when VOA starts pretending to be Russian citizens or offering Russian political figures fake documents to help them in their campaign.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday May 09, @06:19AM (26 children)
I doubt that is even remotely the case (particularly since Newsmax is mostly cable channels which have plenty of competition). My bet is that viewers self-select for these outlets - they're looking for sources that confirm their biases.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09, @06:48AM (25 children)
Talking about yourself there...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday May 09, @06:52AM (24 children)
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09, @07:10AM (21 children)
You are one of the more active users in political drama discussions. Prove? Lol, bro fyi everyone can see your posts
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09, @07:34AM (20 children)
I have evidence that shows libtards melting down over the salient and obvious takes that khallow makes. The evidence is littered throughout the Soylent News, but you're not capable of finding it.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by dalek on Tuesday May 09, @09:03AM (19 children)
Really? You're posting mindless insults like calling people libtards? Either grow up, or take your shitposting elsewhere. It's not welcome in my journal.
The same goes for the AC above your post. If you have a comment that's relevant to the substance of khallow's post, then make your point. If your only responses to khallow are mindless personal attacks, post them somewhere other than my journal. Your shitposting isn't welcome here, either.
As I said in my journal post, I'm absolutely opposed to the violent rhetoric that's all too common in political discourse, if we can actually call it discourse. Mindless drivel like what you two are posting isn't helpful, either. All too often, attempts at meaningful discussion are quickly derailed by moronic insults, just like what you two are doing. It gets in the way of people having any opportunity to find common ground and reach any sort of understanding. Either contribute to the discussion in a useful way by discussing the substance of what people have posted, or get out of my journal.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest just whinge about SN.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09, @04:28PM (18 children)
I want to take the high road, but the rightwing nutters have stuck to the low road so down we go. Users like khallow are the worst offenders, pretending to be simple objective commentators while pushing rightwing lies. Calling out their hypocrisy may work against the lossibility of decent discussions, but the chance of that with certain users is zero. Bad actors should be pushed against and lengthy discussions where you back them into a corner are a waste of time as they just keep repeating the lies in later discussions.
The most beneficial thing is to announce these bad actors so everyone is at least i formed. Khallow can shape up any time and stop defending the fascist take over of the USA. Best block ACs in your journal like Runaway1956 because personally I will not stop calling them out when they will not stop shitposting propaganda or take responsibility for lies.
They need to be shamed because they know their positions are immoral and authoritarian. Civility only fuels their trolling as they get to keep pushing their views by making bad faith arguments. We leave it to you to have the heart felt debates where you try and educate, it is very admirable, but you should let the low quality garbage slide past with a downmod or short condemnation. If not then prepare to just generally be annoyed at every discussion.
I am shamelessly antifa and am done with hoping civility or facts will change the fascists. Ball is in their court, they can defend freedom and democracy any time.
TL;DR when people lie and refuse to acknowledge reality there is no high ground to take
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday May 09, @05:54PM (2 children)
While I agree that it is not offtopic to bring up someone's posting history in a discussion about toxic rhetoric I don't believe I have ever seen khallow post anything violent in nature (unlike a certain other poster).
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09, @09:55PM
True, worst was meant in the manner of denying facts. Runaway is much more violent, but usually shuts up when called out by facts. Khallow honestly seems like a pure propagandist that shifts viewpoints slightly to better match with the prevailing sentiment. Maybe khallow actually shows growth, but the core issues and ideological stubborness on strange topics, like whether an insurrection is an insurrection or whether an obvious criminal is a criminal. Yes we reserve punishment for a judge with a trial, but the crimes were done publicly or we've gotten the details like the infamous Georgia election vote call.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday May 10, @09:07PM
Seconded.
Slashdolt Logic: "25 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
(Score: 2, Interesting) by dalek on Tuesday May 09, @09:32PM (10 children)
I couldn't block AC posting in my journal even if I wanted to. There appears to be a glitch that prevents me from doing so, and so I'm limited to the choices of either enabling comments for everyone or disabling them for everyone. I reported the issue to janrinok awhile back, but the cause of the issue remains undetermined. Even if I could block AC posting, I don't believe I would choose to do so.
I absolutely support holding people accountable for what they've said. If you look at my posting history, I've had plenty to say about a certain awful comment discussing fifty million dead progressives. I support calling people out for hypocrisy, but that means calling them out for actual specific things they've said. The posts I saw looked like vague retorts and moronic insults, such as the AC using the term libtards, and that's why I responded critically. For example, I support directly criticizing khallow for consistently downplaying January 6 [soylentnews.org] and saying things like "It wasn't very violent. Only one person died from violence in the protest. Further, they didn't do much to the Capitol - mild vandalism was about it. Nor did they try to discard anyone's election results. I'll buy that Trump is a large fascist loser, but there's bigger losers out there even now (and the ones of the past were truly epic in scale). So no, not buying the narrative."
When the RNC censured Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, they described the entire events of January 6 as "legitimate political discourse." That's a ridiculous statement. When khallow denies that this is a GOP problem [soylentnews.org], that's ridiculous [soylentnews.org]. There's also khallow's statements about pretrial detention of January 6 rioters [soylentnews.org], which as I documented is very misleading [soylentnews.org].
I have no problem with pointing out absurd and/or hypocritical statements. I'm just drawing a distinction between vague insults and retorts versus actually holding people accountable for specific ridiculous things they've said.
By the way, I modded your post here up as insightful.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest just whinge about SN.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09, @10:02PM (9 children)
Thanks for the upmod but I was also the ass calling out khallow's criticism of echo chambers while he pushes blatant nonsense like j6. I am just done arguing in good faith with bad faith trolls. I try to only do so when deserved by the comment, not just because khallow participated. I actually appreciate some of their posts, few humans are worthless.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by khallow on Thursday May 18, @04:37AM (8 children)
I think it shows some mental deficiency to reduce complex events to a single two letter term.
I doubt you ever started.
(Score: 1) by dalek on Thursday May 18, @06:47PM (7 children)
Nobody had posted in this journal for five days until you showed up to post this bit of flamebait. I told the two ACs that low quality personal attacks weren't welcome in my journal. That applies to you, too, khallow. Take your shitposting elsewhere. Don't post garbage like this in my journals again. SN has said that journal authors get to decide what comments are welcome or unwelcome in their journals. I am exercising that right.
I disagreed with the way the AC posted their thoughts, but their assessment of you is correct. The sign of an honest person is being able to tell the truth even when it's unfavorable to their position. You seem to have a problem doing that.
I've read a lot of your comments, and I've noticed some patterns in how you interact with people. It's fine that you have conservative views, but with the exception of the pandemic, you always seem to take the position that's most favorable to the right. In the case of January 6, you downplay the riot, focusing on that only one person arrested at the Capitol was carrying a firearm. But you insist that there's a large scale problem with speedy trials for people arrested in conjunction with the January 6 riot despite only one reported violation of the Speedy Trial Act. Then you make excuses for why it's not a GOP problem despite the abject refusal of Republicans in Congress to hold Donald Trump responsible for weeks of angrily tweeting disinformation about the 2020 election and his willful decision not to act to stop the riot on January 6. Although you admit that there was large scale lawlessness on January 6, you can't bring yourself to criticize the RNC's censure of Adam Kinzinger and Liz Cheney characterizing those events as "legitimate political discourse." Instead of discussing honestly, you always choose the most favorable interpretation for the right, even if it means contradicting yourself.
The next step is to discredit people who disagree with you, characterizing them as unreasonable. You do this with loaded language, accusing them of things like being hysterical. This is an example of the ad hominem logical fallacy. If you make the person who disagrees with you seem unreasonable, it's a way to avoid addressing their arguments and any facts that they present.
After that, you try to muddy the waters, so to speak. During the 2016 election, the term "fake news" was used to refer to completely fabricated stories, typically crafted by foreign entities attempting to influence our election. This term was then co-opted as a way to dismiss unfavorable news stories, regardless of their accuracy. In the case of the Steele dossier, it was accurate to characterize it as fake news. However, it was also misused to denounce any unfavorable reporting, even when that reporting was completely truthful. You've done the same thing with Azuma Hazuki's journal about intolerance. You've co-opted that term and are misusing it to accuse people who disagree with you of stoking intolerance. Your use of the term "intolerance" would be reasonable if it was in response to someone dehumanizing their political opponents. But that's not what's actually happening. Moreover, you use it in a very one-sided manner, saying that the left is exaggerating the threat of right-wing violence and causing intolerance, but you don't use the same rhetoric when right-wing posters exaggerate threats from the left. This is an attempt to confuse people about what "intolerance" actually means, and to misuse the term so that it effectively becomes meaningless.
In short, there's a pattern to your commenting, and it consists of 1) always arguing the position most favorable to your side, even when it means contradicting yourself, 2) discrediting those who disagree with you and provide evidence that's contrary to what you post, and 3) muddying the waters to create confusion. I've noticed this after reading a lot of your comments about a variety of topics.
While your approach is no way to have an honest discussion, I supported letting you express your opinions in my journal. However, shitposting like this is not welcome in my journal.
Now, let's be clear about some things. The riot on January 6 was an embarrassment and it was absolutely illegal, but the charges that prosecutors are bringing against the rioters are reasonable. It was an angry protest that got way out of hand. The rioters were mostly using makeshift weapons, and only a single person who was arrested at the Capitol was actually carrying a gun. I'll give the benefit of the doubt that it was intended to be a lawful protest, but it got way out of hand. The riot does appear to have been a one time issue.
There's a separate issue of militia groups, who had amassed large caches of weapons just outside of Washington. They had plans to use those weapons to directly influence the legislative proceedings on January 6, but none of these plans were executed. The most serious charges with respect to January 6 have generally been brought against leaders of these militia groups. Still, many militia groups have continued to amass weapons and could use them in the future. Unlike the riot, these are coordinated and well-planned efforts. As long as people are arming for war, there is a real threat. I hope those weapons never get used, but the violent rhetoric concerned me enough to write this journal.
While I strongly disagree with your methods, I still support letting you express your opinions in my journal. However, if you're going to shill in my journal, at least refrain from posting mindless drivel like this.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest just whinge about SN.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday May 19, @12:04AM (6 children)
I'll think about it - you are right about the shitty quality of my post. And while I don't recognize any such right (particularly when the poster criticizes me), the administrators have repeatedly alleged (for example, here [soylentnews.org] that journal owners control who can access their journals which supports your case.
I've been posting here on SN for the better part of a decade, and you haven't seen my non-conservative positions yet? I have repeatedly been accused of being conservative merely because I occasionally take a position that sides with conservatives. This wouldn't be the first. I'll just say that the above is a weak list of concerns (I simply don't care about most of it) and a remarkable lack of detail to these accusations.
I mostly agree. But I doubt the protest was intended to be legal by a fair number of its participants - for example, there was removal of barricades early in the protest combined with at least one speaker with a megaphone encouraging people to enter the Capitol. That's in addition to the Proud Boy plotting.
I'm not seeing much cause for concern here. Plans not executed, weapon caches not used, and a vague assertion of coordination and well-planning. Little in the way of actual harm. As to the future threat, keep in mind those plans and weapons can be used in defense of the US as well as against it. There's not one monolithic side arming up. My take is that this is little different from the extensive gang warfare which the US has endured ever since Prohibition. I think we could do better, but we already have a good idea of the threat level.
Ok, I'll refrain from posting mindless drivel in your journal.
(Score: 1) by dalek on Friday May 19, @01:03AM (5 children)
Fair enough. I appreciate the honesty about quality of the post I replied to. Thank you.
There's a problem with your argument here. I'm going to write a good faith reply and explain why I have a problem with your argument.
I read some comments on message boards like Voat during the interregnum between the 2020 election and January 6. Voat has been shut down, but it was another platform like 8chan that was basically unmoderated. People who are banned from other platforms tend to go to sites like those, which skews the types of discussions that take place on such sites.
I read some of the threads there. One of my observations was that many people viewed the outcome of the 2020 election as a battle between good and evil, which by itself isn't necessarily unlike a lot of the rhetoric surrounding the election in many other places. For example, Biden described the election as a battle for the soul of the country. Biden was speaking figuratively, saying that the outcome of the election would have a big impact on the future direction of the country.
The discussions on felt very different. They seemed to believe that Trump was the last hope for this country, or perhaps for the world, and that all would be lost if he wasn't sworn in for a second term. Some of the language seemed apocalyptic to me. Their language in some posts almost seemed to describe Trump as a Messiah. It wasn't just about ideology, but blind support of one man whom they believed was the actual winner of the election, and that if Trump wasn't sworn back in as president, the country would be doomed. To them, people like Biden and Hillary Clinton weren't just people whose ideas they rejected. The people on that message board seemed to believe that people like Biden and Clinton are actually enemies of the country.
One thing was very clear to me: the people talking about violence on Voat genuinely believed they were defending the United States against an enemy. To repel what they believed was an enemy attacking the United States, they were willing to turn to violence and to killing people.
When the Constitution was written back in the 18th century, it was written with the idea that militia would be ready to take up arms to repel foreign invasions and to stop rebellions and lawlessness. The authors of the Constitution believed that a standing army was not conducive to freedom, so the militia were effectively an army by the people and for the people. This works as long as the militia correctly identify the actual enemies of the United States.
The problem is that the people who were posting on this board don't just believe that some elected officials have awful ideas or are even engaged in criminal activity and need to be prosecuted. They believe that Democratic politicians are enemies of the United States. Some may believe that progressives and perhaps Democrats in general are enemies of the United States. I got a sense of that here with Runaway's explanation of his infamous "fifty million dead progressives" comment. In order to say something like that, he doesn't just believe that progressives are people with ideas that he thinks are terrible. He sees progressives as the enemy of the country. There are other comments here that express similar sentiment, that the United States is under attack from some of its own citizens.
I have no reason to think that the ideas expressed in the comments I read on Voat are somehow atypical of beliefs within a lot of modern militia groups. They don't believe they're actually taking up arms against the United States. They believe that the current government of the United States is illegitimate, and that they're really acting in defense of the country. It's fundamentally different from the Civil War, where the Confederacy seceded from the United States and formed their own government. The people in these militia groups believe they're preparing to defend the United States, and that the current government is more akin to the Confederacy.
The idea of citizens taking up arms to defend their country doesn't sound unreasonable as long as the people taking up arms correctly identify the enemy. The problem is that a lot of these people who are gathering weapons and training for combat have an extremely warped idea of who the enemy is. It's not comforting at all when you say that those weapons can be used to defend the country. That's exactly what groups like the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, and the Three Percenters believe they're doing.
These militia groups haven't fundamentally changed their beliefs since January 6. Trump has fallen out of favor with many of them, but they still believe that Democrats and Progressives are enemies of the United States. As long as they continue to have a warped idea of who the enemy is, they are still a threat to become violent.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest just whinge about SN.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday May 20, @02:39AM (4 children)
My take is that tolerance is a long term strategy that works really well on this sort of problem when you combine it with firm, universal rules: we don't care what you believe or say, but if you start hurting people, we'll take you down. Then you have a choice. You can be a productive member of society no matter your beliefs, or you can be rotting in prison. I think we already see the success of this approach.
(Score: 1) by dalek on Saturday May 20, @05:12AM (3 children)
No, we don't punish thought crime. We punish speech, but only in very limited circumstances. There has to be a specific threat of violence.
However, you've managed to correctly identify the problem here:
As I posted elsewhere in this journal, private paramilitary groups are illegal in every state. Now, it's legal to obtain and carry firearms, but states can and most certainly do regulate how those firearms are used. If your group is wearing military attire, carrying long guns, and demonstrating like a military unit, that's illegal. If your group is conducting paramilitary training, that's also illegal. Again, the second amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms, but it doesn't prohibit regulating how those arms are used.
Now, the governor or the legislature of a state, depending on the law, can summon the unorganized militia to act in a lawful manner. But that's not what's happening here. These groups are breaking the law, and they're getting away with it. When groups get away with lawlessness, others follow along. That's how we've ended up with all these militia groups that are arming for war.
We would be fools to wait until serious harm occurs before acting. It wasn't no secret in the 1850s that states in the South were preparing to secede and were arming for war. It wasn't necessary to wait until Fort Sumter to decide that there was a real problem. The presidents during the 1850s knew that there was a problem but chose not to act. That has a large role in why Millard Fillmore, Franklin Pierce, and particularly James Buchanan are considered three of the very worst presidents in American history. You don't have to take my word for this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_presidents_of_the_United_States [wikipedia.org]. If you read about them, you'll find that historians blame their ineptitude for allowing the Civil War to even begin.
The correct action here is to strictly enforce the law. It doesn't mean criminalizing thought or speech. It doesn't mean infringing upon the right to keep and bear arms. It does mean enforcing the laws that ban private paramilitary organizations and shutting those organizations down permanently. If we don't enforce the laws and shut down these illegal militia groups, we're encouraging their growth and the spread of lawlessness.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest just whinge about SN.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday May 20, @11:58AM (2 children)
Not for lack of trying. My take is that the main reason such fails in the long term is that we can't agree on what thoughts to criminalize.
Reading your post [soylentnews.org] in question, that doesn't sound particularly illegal to me - only New York allegedly had laws on the books against paramilitary organizations. It's fairly easy to bypass such law by restricting one's activities so that they don't meet the threshold for the law. My bet is that's why no one is rounding up paramilitary militia these days.
And I'm dubious of your legal interpretation anyway when you then spend so much time on "well-regulated militia" a throwaway phrase from the Second Amendment.
The Second Amendment doesn't require anyone to act in accord with that term. The actual meaning there is is to make two legally nonbinding claims: an implicit one that well-regulated militia are a good thing, and having people legally able to own and use weapons ("keep and bear arms") would further that. That's it.
In the 1850s, serious harm was happening. There was no waiting for it. And what should the US have done? Preemptively start an unpopular war? All that deciding won't matter, if you don't have serious options available to deal with the problem.
What's missed here is that Fort Sumter gave Lincoln political cover to declare war - any time in the previous few decades no such drastic course of action would have been justifiable. If instead the South had avoided military conflict until it had solid European support, then we might still be in a two country situation.
Waiting serves a twofold purpose: first, it allows the other side a chance to avoid conflict, and second, it forces the other side to start the conflict. In particular, if both sides adopt a waiting strategy, then conflict doesn't happen at all.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 21, @06:16PM (1 child)
Ah yes, the "do nothing" approach to letting fascists consolidate power. Gave you a small benefit of a doubt before, but it becomes ever more clear you're shilling for rightwing fascism in the US. Otherwise you would not spend all your time defending the fascists, a pure libertarian would be raging against the current GOP but at best you offer demure critiques.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday May 21, @10:10PM
Let's review what I wrote:
There are two problems here. First, a misunderstanding of my strategy previously mentioned. Second, a peculiar lack of detail as to what "doing something" means.
Waiting is not doing nothing. In the Civil War example, was Lincoln doing nothing? Were police "doing nothing" prior to the January 6 protest? For example, you can prepare a defense against a fascist attack. You can "show the flag", make the fascists aware that you are prepared for any conflict that should happen. (I presume here that fascists are an actual thing and not your imagination.)
As to doing something about fascism, I remain underwhelmed by the approaches I see used. For example, I see two common strategies used: 1) retreating to an echo chamber and two minute hating fascists there, and 2) using the power of a corporate sponsor/ally to ban or obstruct speech which often turns out not to be fascist. I consider the former to fill the very definition of doing nothing and the latter to be more harmful than the fascists - consider this interesting example [judithcurry.com] from Judith Curry (notable climate skeptic):
Judith Curry happened to be on the wrong side of the climate change debate and was shadow banned for a year and a half. Not a fascist, but didn't stop Twitter from silencing her. Even worse, they didn't tell her. She had to find out this way.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday May 10, @12:43PM (3 children)
So how do we tell the difference between that hypothesis and the one where I'm more or less objective and you're a trashposter? Maybe start with you providing evidence and trashposting less? I can't address or correct problems alleged critics refuse to talk about.
What has this takeover actually taken over? The only big thing so far are the mean January 6 protesters who managed to take over some rooms in the Capitol building for a few hours. That's so two years ago. Random stuff has been blamed on fascists since, such as adverse Supreme Court rulings and US debt ceiling laws that nobody in power follows, including the fascists.
It would also help if you'd get rid of that tunnel vision and actually understand my arguments for once. I can only do so much to help with your ignorance. There's nothing here to condemn or downmod, except an AC wasting our time with nebulous accusations that he never manages to provide any details about.
Of course you are. That's why you're the Us versus Them guy in this thread.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 10, @03:39PM (2 children)
If that makes you feel better about your lies and half baked excuses for runaway capitalism, then you do you. Conservatives have been attacking freedoms decade after decade, but any pushback and you cry like toddlers. Playing the martyr is extra slimey, but again you do you. Here I thought every red blooded American was against fascism, and this time you don't get to do you, fascism is bad mmkay?
(Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Wednesday May 10, @11:54PM (1 child)
You're not even wrong. With the existing degree of heavy regulation this isn't runaway capitalism.
Mean conservatives with mild hypocrisy. Will fix that right away.
Right, I keep forgetting your narrative. From where you've gone with it, I think continue to forget it remains the right choice.
I doubt you've started to think yet. Else we wouldn't have all this losing of shit over minor two year old news.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 19, @05:47PM
Nazi insurrectionist says what?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09, @08:32PM
Not frivolous at all, it's simple fact, you see what you want to see, and call anything that disagrees "propaganda" and "whataboutism", that is what you project. Your own comments are proof enough
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09, @10:13PM
Provoked by sedition? Check, Trump & Frens riled up the j6 rally to go fight for freedom and overturn the election for Trump
Organized? Check, proud boys and others planned the attack with the help of GOP congressional traitors
Violent? Check, police assaulted and one insurrectionist shot while breaking through to get at congress members. The violence not being more intense does not change the intents of the insurrectionists.
The criterua are all met, you just do not want to accept how far Republicans have fallen in their quest for power. Oppressing people isn't cool, and if you find yourself on the wrong side of society being treated like an asshole, maybe try introspection and spiritual study.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by owl on Tuesday May 09, @01:09PM
Are you sure that is the goal?
You are mostly on the right track. Social media echo chambers, and social media engagement algorithms contribute significantly to the outcome, but were the engagement algorithms put in place with a goal of "violent uprising" -- or is "violent uprising" simply an unintended consequence of a different goal for those algorithms?
Consider that the point of social media and news publishers is to earn money from advertising payments. Those social media companies and news publishers then have a direct incentive to find ways to increase engagement because increased engagement directly leads to more advertising revenue.
One way to increase engagement is to create click-bait headlines and false boogeymen to generate a sense of urgency or fear in readers to get them to engage. I.e., there is a reason why grocery store tabloid (i.e., National Enquirer and the like) headlines and stories are written the way they are. Cultivating a false sense of insecurity or urgency creates an interest in learning what in the world is going on (i.e., "engagement"). This just plays on primal survival emotions.
So social media, and as well much of the news/press, has an incentive to create "National Enquirer" style headlines/stories because those types of headlines/stories grab eyeballs and increase engagement.
Now, combine that with the last 10-20 years of the internet and browsers and the ability of website analytics to report to a publisher (be that publisher a social media company or a news org) very fine grained data on "engagement" with their published items. I.e., if you let the analytics javascript run, it can not only report that you viewed a given page, it can report how long you were on the page, whether you scrolled down to read below the fold, if you did a search within the page for some words, etc.
The result of this level of "engagement analytics" is that over the course of years we get a feedback loop going. Publisher produces batch of stories, analytics reports which stories get more "engagement" (these being those that are more on the "rational enquirer" click-bait side). Those stores with more engagement generate more ad revenue. Publisher wants more revenue, so next batch of stories is a bit more "sensational" than the last, because that is what generated more engagement last time. The additional "sensationalism" itself generates more engagement -- which generates more revenue. Repeat the cycle daily over ten plus years and you have all these "social media" and "news orgs" creating sensational stories with false boogeymen to drive ever more ad revenue.
All of which occurred without ever having a goal of "violent uprising". Now, an unintended consequence of all of this is that some of the more gullible of the general population start believing that the boogeymen created by the click-bait publishers is real, and you begin to have the situation we see now, where the fringe is getting riled up enough that they might be becoming a danger -- not because the publishers set out to rile them up (i.e., it was never the goal) -- but because the chasing of ad revenue through engagement metrics resulted in them becoming riled up, and no one in the publishing houses has cared to notice the result of their chasing ever more ad revenue through ever more sensational stories. Their focus is simply on the next quarter's stock-market report.