Jan. 6th committee results

[xerx]

And that's not the issue. The issue is that we live in a panopticon ruled by people who have a long history of killing dissenters. And that panopticon lets people waltz right into the symbolic seat of government, even moving gates to allow them easier access, despite having plenty of advance warning.

1) anti-police feeling was rising in the liberal left before this point,
2) it's telling that the people you believe the police mainly constrain are white supremacists and evangelicals.

Even if you believe that's true of the police, the FBI, Secret Service, and RCMP for that matter are not constrained by public will, and this is by design. The public doesn't even know most of what they do. They are essentially accountable to no one.

No!! I don't believe that police don't target the Left. In fact, I have a strong memory of police violence against Occupy Wall-Street protestors.

My point, and my only point, is that alternatives to police are less accountable and less reformable. Even the FBI has to respond to freedom of information requests; and more than that, because the police and FBI are centralized institutions, they contain a chain of command at which specific criticisms can be aimed. Specific wrong-doers can be named. There is a public scandal surrounding unlawful activity by these institutions.

That's more than can be said about KKK vigilantes, who drive around with gun racks as self-anointed agents of God, who don't belong to a structured institution that keeps records, and, assuming that they even cared or bothered to investigate, can choose to completely ignore the actions of rogue members.

Government is certainly more accountable than private security corporations. Which group of investors will hold them accountable? Hint: it's not plucky Left-wing activists.

Tarrio is the chairman of the Proud Boys and the FBI had at least 4 other informants in top leadership.

If you believe it was a spontaneous uprising you have to wonder why the police let the protesters in, why there was so little security, how the protesters unlocked doors locked with magnetic locks, and why the FBI has refused to answer any questions about its involvement with the event. The involvement of intelligence is the easier explanation; resistance to that comes only from the fact that that has a lot of implications about how politics operates in the developed world.

I'm out of my depth when it comes to dissecting these specific details. I don't have a perfect understanding of the capitol's security procedures. I don't know the exact role of the Proud Boys.

But I'll say this: Any "just so" story can be built around these facts in order to accuse literally any organization, not just the government, of conspiracy. An FBI conspiracy is certainly a possibility, but it is not the easiest explanation. The easiest explanation is that some pissed-off people were moved by inflammatory rhetoric.

[FreelancePoliceman]

No!! I don't believe that police don't target the Left. In fact, I have a strong memory of police violence against Occupy Wall-Street protestors.

My point, and my only point, is that alternatives to police are less accountable and less reformable. Even the FBI has to respond to freedom of information requests; and more than that, because the police and FBI are centralized institutions, they contain a chain of command at which specific criticisms can be aimed. Specific wrong-doers can be named. There is a public scandal surrounding unlawful activity by these institutions.

That's more than can be said about KKK vigilantes, who drive around with gun racks as self-anointed agents of God, who don't belong to a structured institution that keeps records, and, assuming that they even cared or bothered to investigate, can choose to completely ignore the actions of rogue members.

Government is certainly more accountable than private security corporations. Which group of investors will hold them accountable? Hint: it's not plucky Left-wing activists.

Activists weren't really who I meant. You don't need much surveillance to keep them in line. Just have someone accuse one of them of hating Jews or transsexuals and they fall apart. Or give them drugs.

The FBI's response to FOIA requests can be and often is just "no." The FBI and CIA also have a history of destroying records. If the records of any wrongdoings are kept secret or destroyed, and nothing comes of it when they are destroyed (for instance, the CIA's destruction of tens of thousands of documents relating to MKULTRA, a project we even know about because the CIA mislaid some documents it meant to destroy), what is the functional difference between intelligence and the KKK except that the KKK tries not to cover its tracks? The CIA can sell drugs, control mainstream media, torture people, a branch can ""go rogue"" and begin selling child prostitutes, or the FBI can commit political assassinations, and nothing ever changes. Why would it suddenly begin to change? The public didn't hold these organizations "accountable" before; it's not going to because of some sense of moral outrage. And the fact of the matter is that it can't. Klansmen in a truck can at least be shot back at.

But I'll say this: Any "just so" story can be built around these facts in order to accuse literally any organization, not just the government, of conspiracy. An FBI conspiracy is certainly a possibility, but it is not the easiest explanation. The easiest explanation is that some pissed-off people were moved by inflammatory rhetoric.

No one is saying that the mob wasn't riled up. The problem is that their being angry doesn't explain how they got inside the Capitol.

[xerx]

Activists weren't really who I meant. You don't need much surveillance to keep them in line. Just have someone accuse one of them of hating Jews or transsexuals and they fall apart. Or give them drugs.

The FBI's response to FOIA requests can be and often is just "no." The FBI and CIA also have a history of destroying records. If the records of any wrongdoings are kept secret or destroyed, and nothing comes of it when they are destroyed (for instance, the CIA's destruction of tens of thousands of documents relating to MKULTRA, a project we even know about because the CIA mislaid some documents it meant to destroy), what is the functional difference between intelligence and the KKK except that the KKK tries not to cover its tracks? The CIA can sell drugs, control mainstream media, torture people, a branch can ""go rogue"" and begin selling child prostitutes, or the FBI can commit political assassinations, and nothing ever changes. Why would it suddenly begin to change? The public didn't hold these organizations "accountable" before; it's not going to because of some sense of moral outrage. And the fact of the matter is that it can't. Klansmen in a truck can at least be shot back at.

No one is saying that the mob wasn't riled up. The problem is that their being angry doesn't explain how they got inside the Capitol.

I'm not here to defend intelligence agencies, as intelligence agencies have carried out all kinds of nefarious activities. Some of them should even be prosecuted for violating the 4th amendment (if you want to talk about "defunding the NSA", I'll listen). But not every big event was caused by some hidden hand.

[Disturbed]

I don't much about it, and I wasn't a huge Donald Trump fan, but I think he got way too much negative, undeserved, often untruthful feedback that really showed how so many of his critics on the left weren't very smart (e.g., loudly asserting that he was an idiot or only of no more than average intelligence without knowing how iq tests, psychometrics work and what human abilities correlated with general intelligence, that he couldn't have done anything without his father... his IQ was certainly at least 125, if not 140 at its peak and while his father did help him, and while he did make mistakes, he also recovered independently at times and multiplied what wealth he inherited many times over, taking inflation into account, more than 4x over), and too little positive feedback for what good he did do (he was the least hawkish and much more diplomatic than pro-war and just downright cautious on foreign policy president after jimmy carter and of my lifetime, Ronald Reagan was president when I was born) compared to, say, Bush 43 and Bill Clinton.

I mean, if Obama's justice department closing bank accounts of poor female prostitutes and what he and his admin did to edward snowden, julian assange and so many others doesn't make Obama an authoritarian or someone who is was against change while claiming to be for it, then nothing makes anyone an authoritarian... Obama was actually far more far right than Trump was (regulations especially sopa and pipa which were censorship and corporate welfare, drug raids, eco-fascism, increasing health care administration and costs associated with that, surveillance, state secrets, pro-corporate pro-establishment business bailouts, overthrowing Muhamar Gadhafi, adhering to the time table about Iraq exit rather than leaving immediately, etc., etc). Majority rule, democracy, whatever you want to call it can be very authoritarian/against civil liberties whatever you want to call them, and I'm just glad Hillary Clinton wasn't president with her neo-conservative sympathies and I suspect some closet misogyny ,saying "I beat out the beauty queens", "Tulsi Gabbard is a Russian Asset", "Frankly, I see little girls dressed in ways I think are very inappropriate, parents have to draw the line, where do you draw the line", that she pretended the opposite of or even tricked herself into thinking otherwise just so she could have power over both females and males and make failed attempts to redistribute wealth because she didn't understand economics, her attempts at reasoning was always lacking details and she really wasn't very high IQ, she was a mediocre or even below average lawyer, mediocre secretary of state, mediocre at image and public speaking; the actions she would've taken would've been maniacal and her proposed policies were ridiculous.

[xerx]

A substantial chunk of the rioters had ties to activist / extremist groups (https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlo...sts-proud-boys) and weren't "ordinary" folks who just happened to be there.

What's an extremist? From the article:

Extremism is not due to the presence of a single risk factor or criminogenic indicator, like unemployment. It is not typically a product of psychopathy or rare personality disorders. Rather, it is a result of a cognitive, social and behavioral process by which seemingly “normal” individuals from various walks of life and socioeconomic backgrounds adopt views that justify the use of illegal means, including violence, for achieving political, social, economic or religious goals. It often involves the formation of communities of like-minded individuals who mobilize one another to action. These are the dynamics that were on display at the Capitol on Jan. 6.

[Metamorph]

We'll know for sure when FBI agents start reporting brain aneurysms from being here.

We already had one of the most-valued members die of a brain aneurysm. So are you really joking?

[Metamorph]

Extremism is not due to the presence of a single risk factor or criminogenic indicator, like unemployment. It is not typically a product of psychopathy or rare personality disorders. Rather, it is a result of a cognitive, social and behavioral process by which seemingly “normal” individuals from various walks of life and socioeconomic backgrounds adopt views that justify the use of illegal means, including violence, for achieving political, social, economic or religious goals. It often involves the formation of communities of like-minded individuals who mobilize one another to action. These are the dynamics that were on display at the Capitol on Jan. 6.

"Illegal according to who?" I don't agree with everything Noam Chomsky says, but he covered this very well in the Chomsky-Foucault debates on human nature, which can be read for free. Even in cases where something is not even against a written law, show trials can be held anyways. But in many cases, laws seemingly contradict other laws, so someone is left choosing which one they think takes precedence. I think there is almost certainly only one possible set of non-contradictory laws and probably the one we have isn't it, which would imply that everyone is breaking minor laws all the time sadly and no one can do anything about it but also no one can care.

[xerx]

"Illegal according to who?" I don't agree with everything Noam Chomsky says, but he covered this very well in the Chomsky-Foucault debates on human nature, which can be read for free. Even in cases where something is not even against a written law, show trials can be held anyways. But in many cases, laws seemingly contradict other laws, so someone is left choosing which one they think takes precedence. I think there is almost certainly only one possible set of non-contradictory laws and probably the one we have isn't it, which would imply that everyone is breaking minor laws all the time sadly and no one can do anything about it but also no one can care.

Oh, I'd be very shocked if there wasn't a "show trial" component to the January 6th hearings. Very few politicians succeed by not criticizing their rivals, and it's very possible, and almost certainly the case, that the hearings' primary aim is to weaken Donald Trump's re-election chances.

It's also very possible that Donald Trump is guilty of what he's being accused of. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

[xerx]

So are you really joking?

I was only joking.

We already had one of the most-valued members die of a brain aneurysm.

I remembered that after I wrote the joke. My bad.