SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
It's been one heck of a week:
Against the backdrop of record-setting numbers of COVID-19 deaths and infections in the US and around the world, there was turmoil in Washington, DC. As court cases surrounding the presidential election were filed and dismissed, a close race in Georgia was coming down to the wire and with it control of the US Senate. While the US Congress was completing the Electoral College tally and certification, a mob formed outside — and eventually broke into — the US Capitol. This resulted in a 4-hour lock-down. Eventually, the intrusion was repelled, and the Electoral College count was completed: Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. was confirmed as the 46th president of the United States of America.
Conspiracy theories have flourished. Propaganda has streamed forth across multiple platforms. Tempers have flared.
And SoylentNews has been there for you. And have you ever spoken up! Two of the most-commented stories in the site's nearly seven-year history were posted in just the past week!
Insomuch as the activities in the US Capitol were far from the US' most shining moments, neither were things all unicorns and rainbows on SoylentNews. Tempers flared. People were attacked and called names. I even accidentally deleted a story and the 17 comments attached to it! [NB: Problem addressed: the delete button no longer appears by default for our editors.]
IRC (Internet Relay Chat):
Even our IRC service was not free from controversy. We had a spate of nick (nickname) impersonations. Going forward, IRC users are free to use whatever nick they like with the following caveats:
- Prefix / suffix of a nick is fine for practical purposes (e.g. ${nick}_laptop)
- Impersonation or misrepresentation will not be tolerated
- The use of another user's website nick or derivative thereof on IRC will be subject to sanctions up to and including perma ban.
Further, we understand conversations can easily ramble from subject to subject, but there are separate channels for different topics. (Use the /list comand to see what is available.) As #soylent is the default landing channel, we want to keep the discussions there civil. Name calling and personal attacks are grounds for a timeout. I have had discussions with deucalion (the site's CEO and also IRC-maintainer) about these activities.
NOTE: we are NOT going to sit there watching every discussion, poised to take action. But, if such activity is seen by staff on IRC, they are free to take such actions as they deem necessary.
Aspirations:
As I approach posting my 10,000th story(!) to SoylentNews, I think back to when it all started. How a group of people got together. They shared freely of their expertise, of their free time, and of their hard-earned funds. They tried to create a place free from corporate overlords where people could engage in discussions that focused primarily on technology, but with a dabbling in other areas and current events.
SoylentNews provides a forum for discussion. It also provides tools so the community can express themselves in the comments and moderate those comments, as well.
This got me to thinking. What are our aspirations today? What are our guiding principles? I will list some of my guiding principles, and I encourage the community to share what guides them in the comments.
- "Explanations exist; they have existed for all time; there is always a well-known solution to every human problem—neat, plausible, and wrong." --H. L. Mencken (cite)
- "People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do." -- Isaac Asimov (cite)
- "If you speak when angry, you'll make the best speech you'll ever regret." -- Groucho Marx (cite)
- "Say what you mean, mean what you say, but don't say it mean."
- "Don't get furious, get curious" -- Miley Cyrus (cite)
- "Humiliation is when someone points out my shortcomings. Humility is when I confess them myself."
- "I need not participate in every fight I am invited to."
- The most difficult behaviors to observe in another person are the ones I dislike in my own.
- "You have not converted a man because you have silenced him." -- John, Lord Morley (cite)
How about you? What sayings guide your aspirations?
Thank You!
Lastly, I thank all of you for supporting me as Editor-in-Chief. I have no formal background in writing or management. I've made mistakes, but I've tried to own up to them as they happened. I strive to be fair, impartial, and open-minded. Under the watchful gaze of the community, I have grown. It is my hope that I may continue to earn your respect and continue in service for many years to come.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Freeman on Monday January 11 2021, @04:08PM (31 children)
The founding fathers realized their error by amendment #2, because their intention was to make the Government afraid of it's people. Not the other way around.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 5, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Monday January 11 2021, @04:26PM
Right, and all that other stuff in the Constitution about the will of the voters and electing our leaders is just bullshit.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by DannyB on Monday January 11 2021, @05:56PM (26 children)
The way you mean that is just plain wrong.
The government (eg, elected officials) should be afraid of the voters in the next election. That also means voters should actually get out and vote. Fortunately we've seen more women and non whites vote this time than ever, and they seem to have gotten the message that they need to vote.
As for making the government afraid of armed uprising, I don't think they meant that. The government has you outgunned.
The last two elections it was the MAJORITY (of human beings) that voted against Trump. Four years ago, Trump won due to how the electoral college works. This time he did not. That and only that is the entire reason for this armed uprising. It has nothing to do with making the government afraid. That is just trying to change the subject. The real subject here is that a minority of crazy people cannot accept the will of the majority.
If Trump had won this time (the electoral college, even while losing the popular vote), I suspect that just like four years ago, the Democrats would have accepted the outcome of how our peaceful democratic system of government works.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 11 2021, @06:53PM (5 children)
No, the way he means it is *exactly* as the founding fathers intended. This [monticello.org] is a quote from Thomas Jefferson. I assume you know, but if for some reason you do not, he is the man who literally wrote our constitution. The length is necessary for I find quotations without context to often be subject to misinterpretation. Jefferson makes his views impeccably clear here:
Jefferson specifically references and condones rebellions driven by what he felt was ignorance. Because he felt it was important that government is constantly reminded that they are there only by the grace of the citizenry they 'rule'. In this case he's referencing Shay's Rebellion [wikipedia.org]. Shay's rebellion was when a ragtag group of about 4,000 people ran around attacking courthouses and various government properties to interfere with the normal operations. They were upset by the state's tax and banking policies (resulting numerous foreclosures on farms) and demanded change. This culminated in them aiming to attack a federal armory, seize the weapons, and overthrow the government. They met with an organized private militia. After taking a single shot of grapeshot, the rebels scattered and were eventually fully routed and dispersed.
(Score: 4, Informative) by DannyB on Monday January 11 2021, @07:13PM (2 children)
So that was a state tax, not a federal tax?
Regardless (or is it "irregardless" on SN?), taxes are something that politicians do. You do have the power to vote them out. Or not have voted them in. Generally, politicians are heavily questioned about their policies long before the election,
This is as it should be.
From what I read:
If you don't like the government: VOTE!
If you don't like the outcome of the election: Try convincing people to your point of view. Debate.
If your point of view is that everyone should live in a lawless anarchy, then try moving somewhere and forming such a government. I recently saw video about how parts of Antarctica are still unclaimed.
In redneckistan the highest form of intellectual debate is a gun. Some here now advocate for congress members to have guns in the chambers of congress in case -- OMG -- Pelosi says WORDS!
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday January 11 2021, @11:26PM
Guns are an overkill, but don't dismiss the (good or bad) power of words [aljazeera.com].
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 12 2021, @04:37PM
I'm glad you at least acknowledge that there should be a dramatic difference in the way we treat words versus actions. That's atypical for many people, such as you, now a today. So I applaud you.
However, the reason for the firearm is obviously not to protect against words. Were this a genuine purposeful, organized, and violent coup attempt, the lives of the congress-people could have genuinely been jeopardized. Arming yourself means that even in a scenario like this you will never be helpless. You might imagine they'd have their guards to protect them but see, for instance, the attempted mass homicide [wikipedia.org] of congresspeople at the congressional baseball game. The only thing that saved their lives in that case was the fact that the shooter couldn't hit the broad side of a barn. Were he a capable marksman, he easily could have killed a dozen or more congresspeople.
See, for contrast, the 2016 BLM shooter [wikipedia.org]. He was a veteran and skilled shooter. And at a BLM protest with a very heavy police presence he was able to kill 5 police officers and wound 9 others. And the only reason those numbers are as "low" as they are is because the people he was shooting at were also armed. If it were him at the congressional mass shooting, the body count would have easily been in the dozens.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 11 2021, @07:30PM (1 child)
No, he wasn't. Jefferson was the primary writer of the Declaration of Independence. James Madison was the one who wrote the "Virginia Plan" proposal that became the first draft of the Constitution (the Convention further modified many things before compromising on the final version submitted to the states for ratification). Jefferson was serving as Minister to France, and was therefore in Paris, during the Constitutional Convention debates. Jefferson's contribution was limited to various letters he sent to members of the Convention with his opinions, that's all.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Nobuddy on Tuesday January 12 2021, @02:56PM
Careful. Using facts and reality on a trumptard will trigger a fight or flight response. It is something new and scary to them.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 11 2021, @09:01PM
"As for making the government afraid of armed uprising, I don't think they meant that. The government has you outgunned."
i knew you were dumb as hell. thanks for showing everybody just how dumb you really are. of course that's what the founding fathers meant you dumb twat. that's what the second is for.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by HiThere on Monday January 11 2021, @10:27PM (15 children)
Read Thomas Jefferson "The tree of liberty must be refreshed..." https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/jefferson/105.html [loc.gov]
That's a poor argument for a modern society, however. That was for a society where most people were relatively independent farmers, and able to survive for months without supplies from outside. Modern cities have, perhaps, a two days supply of food on hand. They depend on piped water from governmentally controlled sources. Etc. And then most of the population (definitely the farmers) was skilled with a rifle. They hunted for game to supplement their larders. Now it's a minority, and most of that minority doesn't have access to artillery or a tank.
This is a real problem for modern US civilization. It, together with the closing of the frontier, has enabled the government to increasingly encroach on traditional rights of the citizenry. (This hasn't all been bad. I wouldn't prefer to live in a place where dueling was popular.) And appeals to the US Constitution are increasingly unreasonable. Most of the government is, and has been for at least a century, unconstitutional under any reasonable reading of the words. But the words interpreted literally would not yield a functional government with a dense population, and fast transport and rapid communication. Look at what just the speeding up of communication by things like Facebook has done. Things that worked well a decade ago now only react after everything is over. Consider Tiktok and Trump's Arizona rally.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday January 11 2021, @10:42PM (13 children)
Okay. Interesting.
All that said, what this is about is not about government encroaching upon someone's rights (which they might be doing elsewhere). What we're talking about here is that people cannot accept the outcome of a peaceful election.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 11 2021, @11:19PM (12 children)
The chant wasn't "our guy didn't win" it was "stop the steal". These people truly believed that the outcome was fraudulent, and were trying to protect democracy. They were patriots, but they were ignorant. As Jefferson said of such people:
How do you know the election was legitimate anyway? You surely didn't count all the votes yourself, so it can only be because you were told it was legitimate by people you trust. Just the same as they were told it was fraudulent.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 11 2021, @11:54PM
You assholes called for Kapernick's head and cheered on peaceful protesters getting assaulted because you considered them all rioters. Now you want to excuse people that committed felonies because you feel they are just misguided? Absolute bullshit from yet another traitor to democracy. Hipe they arrest your ass too.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Nobuddy on Tuesday January 12 2021, @02:58PM (9 children)
there was no steal. over 60 cases were filed with the courts by the trump team. ALL were laughed out of court as absurd and unfounded.
Ask yourself why nobody challenged the Republican WINS in those states. It was all on the same ballots. why are THOSE perfectly fine but the presidential election is fraudulent? When they are all on the same fucking ballot?
Goddamn, you are some dim motherfuckers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 12 2021, @05:05PM (8 children)
You just inadvertently referenced one the abnormalities about this election. It was *not* the same ballots. Here [politico.com] are Georgia's election results.
House: 2,490,396 red + 2,393,089 blue = 4,883,485 votes
Senate: 2,462,617 red + 2,374,519 blue = 4,837,136 votes
President: 2,461,854 red + 2,473,633 blue = 4,935,487 votes
One of the allegations that was never able to be presented in court is election observers claiming that large packages of perfectly straight mail-in ballots (e.g. no signs of folding/wear and tear as is normal for the mail in process) that all seemed perfectly cleanly filled out (compared to normal ballots) and all with no votes present except a single vote for Biden. The reported numbers (which the observer would not have been privy to when making such claims) seem to provide evidence that there were certainly large number of ballots that had no votes except a single vote for Biden. And that is *extremely* irregular.
And the reason the cases were dismissed was not because they were unfounded, but because the courts claimed Trump had no standing. Standing does not take into consideration evidence and is based solely on a determination on whether an act caused harm to you. You can't e.g. sue Joe for breaking his contract with Bob, if you're not Bob or another party that can somehow show direct harm. The courts claimed that the President in a national election, where without alleged irregularities would likely have won, has no standing to sue the states for conducting their elections in such a way as to enable such irregularities. If you can drop the Trump stuff, that should deeply bother you. Because this means that the courts have effectively said that *nobody* has standing to sue states for election misconduct.
(Score: 1) by lcall on Tuesday January 12 2021, @07:13PM (2 children)
If anyone in a state thinks the election was handled badly, is it not for them to sue or work through other political means so that the issues can be fixed, now, or for the next election? Or go to the supreme court?
The Constitution does make us a collection of states, and in voting, the electors are chosen by states according to those states' laws, and there are means to change (or challen) those, right? So, the indended process of our democratic republic is still working, given those things, right?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 13 2021, @03:11PM (1 child)
The only way you're going to enact change against people who are knowingly (as opposed to inadvertently) engaging in bad behavior is through the courts. But the courts (including state courts) continue to reject all lawsuits based on a lack of standing.
As an aside this is also similar to how the NSA is able to get away with what is likely numerous violations of the 4th amendment. In order to sue the NSA you need to prove standing which entails showing you were harmed by their domestic surveillance network. But since you cannot even [legally] show that domestic surveillance network even exists, it's impossible to prove standing and thus impossible to sue for a constitutional violation. This is one glaring issue in our legal system. I mean there is *very* good reason for the notion of standing requirements to exist, but it does open the door to maliciousness with plausible deniability from the judicial.
(Score: 1) by lcall on Wednesday January 13 2021, @03:43PM
In the long term (and hopefully also the short term), I am not seeing how we lack, in all states, peaceful & lawful means to address this to the extent it should be addressed, whether by appeals and/or future elections.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 12 2021, @07:21PM (2 children)
You idiot. You do realize you can abstain voting for individual offices?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 13 2021, @06:52AM (1 child)
Makes you wonder if there is a reason they only posted one Senate race. I wonder if it has anything to do with approximately 40,000 vote difference between the two.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 13 2021, @03:15PM
The races I listed were all on a single ticket. The second senate runoff was a different contest altogether.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 12 2021, @07:23PM
Also you're only summing red and blue votes. Where are the green and gold votes? Whatabout Vermin Supreme write-in votes, shirley at least a few people are concerned about dental hygiene!
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Wednesday January 13 2021, @07:56PM
Someone has been watching YouTube conspiracy videos!
No one was able to find a single one of these so affected ballots during the hand recounts, were they? Someone with a motive to lie claiming they saw something is hardly definite proof. Undervotes (those not filling out entire ballots) are common in presidential elections. The percentage was actually lower this year than in past elections.
They couldn't find anyone with "standing" to file the suits for them?
Face it, the entire "Stop the Steal" movement was just political theater, designed to fire up the most gullible part of the base (and of course to collect donations). Trump, unless he has become completely delusional, knows he lost. The real reason he lost is that many conservatives have become sick of his behavior and voted against him while still voting red further down the ticket.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday January 12 2021, @03:30PM
Without any evidence.
This was the most scrutinized election in history. Cameras everywhere. Poll watchers everywhere.
Republicans said this was the most secure election in history.
Trump:
1. boastful bombastic lies about how the election was stolen, the facts are on my side, etc, but never shows a shred of evidence
2. files a blizzard of lawsuits -- all struck down in court, many by Republican judges, some of which were appointed by Trump -- for all kinds of problems, lack of standing, not a shred of evidence. One of the most recent Republican judge smackdowns even said "it is difficult to find any good faith here".
Because there were recounts in all the important places. How many times do you need a recount? You'll never be convinced. Because Trump told you otherwise and that overrides all reason, facts, evidence, logic and sense. Thus it is okay to try to violently overthrow a peaceful certified election. Because Trump said to do so!
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 11 2021, @11:00PM
Then stop reading it literally. Of the Constitution you say:
So it only makes sense to interpret "the blood of patriots and tyrants" not necessarily as a literal shedding of blood, but as bringing to the attention of both the public and government, the injustices of those with power, and the injustices meted upon those without.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 12 2021, @12:59PM (2 children)
When I was in school, the civics teachers were quite clear in stating the same position as GP. A government that doesn't dread the wrath of it's citizens will inevitably turn corrupt and oppressive.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday January 12 2021, @03:19PM (1 child)
We're not talking about corruption and oppression.
We're talking about crazy people who don't like the outcome of the election and are going to act with violence because they think the minority should rule over the majority.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 12 2021, @07:27PM
In way we are. Consider that the boogaloo succeeds (right now it's a joke but give it 8 years of DNC austerity...). What then?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Monday January 11 2021, @08:19PM (2 children)
No, the 2nd Amendment was meant to prevent the nation from weakening itself, the better to resist outside attack. A nation in which all the weapons are in the hands of a very few is going to have a real hard time resisting an invasion. The invaders will have an easy time picking off the elites and replacing them.
We were all supposed to be pulling together, not those of us outside of government and those inside our own government eyeing each other with the deepest suspicion. We have all these other tools to redress problems with governance. Bullets are supposed to be off the table entirely, not even a last resort. Because if we do resort to bullets on a large scale, the nation is already grievously wounded and fractured, and may not live.
A further goal could well have been accustoming people with the responsibility that comes with owning a firearm. There might also have been a bit of fantasy about enabling a lifestyle built around hunting. In the 18th century, there was enough wilderness to support a sizeable number of hunters. Today, no effing way. It's sport. For all but a tiny fraction of the population, it's not a serious way, can't be a serious way, to put food on the table. And as a sport, it's become an excuse to swagger around and pretend to be manlier than thou, as if the average city slicker couldn't bag a deer or a duck if they had to, or couldn't overcome their squeamishness about such thrilling tasks as gutting the kill.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 11 2021, @09:03PM (1 child)
fuck off and read the federalist papers.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Tuesday January 12 2021, @04:04PM
Low bar for entry, even. Don't need to read it, just have some time where you can be listening. https://librivox.org/the-federalist-papers-by-alexander-hamilton-john-jay-and-james-madison/ [librivox.org]
Also, as a general good read or listen, The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin is very interesting. The man could write. https://librivox.org/the-autobigraphy-of-benjamin-franklin-ed-by-frank-woodworth-pine/ [librivox.org]
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"