Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 382: Kamala Harris has Presidential Powers Today

(+) Yeah! (+)

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Sep, read up on herd mentality dude.

If everyone around you is someone you identify with, it is very easy to get caught-up in and suck weed into doing something you would never do, even stuff that runs counter to your own beliefs.

Like I said before, if you want to argue that theres no legal difference between a premeditated action and one youve been suckered into, our beliefs on this are irreconcilable.

You will (and SHOULD) get a DUI regardless of how much peer pressure was involved.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Sep, read up on herd mentality dude.

If everyone around you is someone you identify with, it is very easy to get caught-up in and suck weed into doing something you would never do, even stuff that runs counter to your own beliefs.

I fully believe herd mentality is a thing in some cases.

This is not one of those cases. Not for the people involved in the breach. Once they met resistance, if they didn't turn back, they had intent, straight up. There were plenty of people that did turn back, and didn't go inside. Stop fucking trying to excuse the ones that took part. Or if you're going to, stop trying to cover it as "This is a leftist position, you libs!"

---

I'd love a list of crimes where the punishment is lesser if you're "suckered into" doing it.

---

If someone double dog dares you to shoot someone, that automatically makes it involuntary manslaughter rather than 1st degree murder.

If it's a triple dog dare then it's just a misdemeanor harassment.

---

skullbone posted...

I'd love a list of crimes where the punishment is lesser if you're "suckered into" doing it.

Only ones that involve "herd" mentality apparently.

So if you go cow tipping with a crowd of people you probably qualify for double jeopardy right off the bat.

---

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

If someone double dog dares you to shoot someone, that automatically makes it involuntary manslaughter rather than 1st degree murder.

If it's a triple dog dare then it's just a misdemeanor harassment.

If it's a game of truth or dare then then it's 1st degree but only the darer is responsible since you're legally required to carry out the dare.
---

"This is the herd mentality, Jack. The individual cannot be held responsible, it's society that's diseased."



---

Incitement is literally a crime?

lol, why would a person who gets goaded into a crime, something much easier to get nudged into as a crowd, (caveat being that the inciter partakes in as well) get an equal punishment?

---

Don't believe anyone said that the punishments need to be equal. Just that the low end of the punishment shouldn't be "say you're sorry with sugar on top 1000 times" or whatever you're suggesting.

---

Im sure this is about the impeachment, but the fact thats a suggested result is wild.

---

It seems to me, and this is based not just on this topic, but also several arguments we've had in the past, that Tony is highly anti-authority in his mindset. That is to say, the people in power are the problem and should suffer consequences for their actions, whereas their followers should not be held responsible for the manipulation they've suffered.

On paper, yeah, it feels unjust for the pawns to get the brunt of any punishment, for following the orders of the higher-ranking members of any group. But we live in a world where those in charge are unlikely, for one reason or another, to face any consequences for their actions. They certainly SHOULD, but they aren't going to. So when you say "Well these guys shouldn't be punished for following the herd mentality", the line gets blurry. Who is the arbiter that gets to decide "These people were leading the charge, and these people were hapless followers"? And when that gets blurry, the ultimate result is the thought process that no one should be punished, which essentially tells all those involved that what they did was A-OK.

My thought process is different. These people may have been manipulated, but they were manipulated because this is what they wanted. When Trump won in 2016, you saw massive protests, but you didn't see people declaring the election itself rigged (influenced by Russian lies, sure, but not outright rigged), nor did you see rioters breaking into the capitol to subvert democracy. That's the fundamental difference, but when you say "neither of these forms of protest warrants punishment", that only really benefits and emboldens the side that's willing to escalate to violence very easily.

I just think that you, Tony, need to hold individuals responsible for their own actions more often. We've had this disagreement in the past in regards to the media or the DNC or whomever, where you say those in power are the problem, and I think that is far too generous to a population that is so comfortable and willing to be manipulated (if they even are being manipulated in the first place). Systemic issues exist, and issues at the top of power structures exist, but the people uphold those systems and those power structures, and gullible or not, they should be held accountable for their actions.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Incitement is literally a crime?

lol, why would a person who gets goaded into a crime, something much easier to get nudged into as a crowd, (caveat being that the inciter partakes in as well) get an equal punishment?

I guess a good litmus test here is whether you'd apply this to unjust actions taken by the police, given the overwhelming cultural pressure they're facing. Do you give police officers a pass for unjust actions as well?

---

I don't think anybody is saying the inciters shouldn't be punished heavier?

Our opposition is to you saying, first, that it wasn't an attempted insurrection, just a protest that "got out of hand," and then to you basically saying anybody that wasn't an inciter isn't responsible for their own actions and should be let off with a Susan Collins "I'm sure they'll learn their lesson."

---

I am highly anti-authority

The insurrectionists, because that's what they were, still deserve complete culpability for their actions

UshiromiyaEva posted...

It's unfortunate that he had to come out with all this on Tucker which is going to cause many, many people (including me a bit honestly) to not give two shits about what he's saying.

To be fair, I think someone going on Tucker and saying they believe in BLM is probably the first time that's ever happened and is already pissing off some conservatives

---

Fair.

---

There is some truth to what Inviso is saying about me: I do believe that inherently the people in power or who have control are much more responsible for the actions of people below them, if they guided them that way.

But when you combine that with the fact that Im basically a prison abolitionist, I think youll find where Im at.

I think prison should be reserved for people who are 1) Dangerous to others and 2) have the intent to act, and 3) willingness to do it again.

Thats it.

Everyone else who commits crimes should be pressed into mandatory community service. Also while were talking about it, Im against fines unless were specifically talking repayment of damages. Fines are a penalty on only the poor.

---

KamikazePotato posted...

To be fair, I think someone going on Tucker and saying they believe in BLM is probably the first time that's ever happened and is already pissing off some conservatives

Yeah, it's weird.

Kyle has said he was for peaceful protests literally in the McGinnis interview and that he supports BLM. But for some reason the far right forgot about that in their efforts to make him some kind of hero.

There's already loads of far right goons saying this kid betrayed them and stupid shit. So I think it's pretty clear he's not catering to any far right folks now.

---

Tony, how do you feel about sending cops to prison? Abolitionists do not support the prison system, but in high profile police brutality cases for instance you have to admit there's just not a lot of other tools in our current system as it is. It's totally possible (and necessary!) to have these conflicting thoughts. This situation is pretty close to that.

I mean honestly I can't even tell if this is actually about sentencing or if you think the guy is blameless because of "herd mentality."

---

Tony did say there were cases prison would be acceptable and I do think that would fit.

---

To be fair, the insurrectionists check all three boxes that he stated, since you absolutely know a good number of them would do it again if they thought they could get away with it and got let off with a slap on the wrist last time.

---

StealThisSheen posted...

To be fair, the insurrectionists check all three boxes that he stated, since you absolutely know a good number of them would do it again if they thought they could get away with it and got let off with a slap on the wrist last time.

Yeah I'm not sure how you square willingness for repeat offenses when we're talking about the types of people that travel across the country to go to alt-right rallies and then "happen" to be caught up in a planned fascist riot.

Prison isn't going to fix that kind of societal brain rot, but pretending they aren't culpable for their actions is only gonna make it worse.

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

Tony, how do you feel about sending cops to prison? Abolitionists do not support the prison system, but in high profile police brutality cases for instance you have to admit there's just not a lot of other tools in our current system as it is. It's totally possible (and necessary!) to have these conflicting thoughts. This situation is pretty close to that.

I mean honestly I can't even tell if this is actually about sentencing or if you think the guy is blameless because of "herd mentality."

If they meet the criteria of being an individual threat to society, then yes (but I agree, theres a dissonance in the sense that cops are inherently a threat to certain parts of society).

Im glad you acknowledge and understand the inevitable contradictions that come up when youre living in one culture but hold beliefs based on ideology.

As for the second paragraph, its a little of both? I didnt look it up, but my first thought when reading the Q Shamans sentencing was abject pity. Hes likely an awful person, but hes also a cultist, and unless youre the leader, members of a cult are basically by definition victims of their own gullibility.

His intention was to follow his cult leader and protest the results, and since he didnt personally harm anyone I just dont think he should go to prison. Its really that simple to me.

---

A few thoughts after watching Tucker's interview with Rittenhouse:

Kyle seems like an okay kid. Hilarious to see the far right turn on him after he says he supports BLM. He's a dumb kid who is a sad victim of our insane gun culture, and likely, a victim of manipulative right-wing programming like Tucker's.

Tucker Carlson, on the other hand, is literally Patrick Bateman from American Psycho. The way he tries to manipulate Kyle into being some beacon against the establishment media to fit his pseudo-populist narrative, mere days after the kid found out he's not going to prison for life, is disgusting. With his attempts at empathy and fake laughter in this interview, I am fully convinced the dude is a psychopath unable to feel anything for anyone but himself. Which elucidates the insane shit he peddles on his program and his obvious political ambitions. He's still by far the most dangerous propagandist in the country.

---

https://twitter.com/Blklivesmatter/status/1461874704302555138?s=20

https://twitter.com/Blklivesmatter/status/1462871952478007297?t=f_-bk9ALnp2-UjB2_LeokQ&s=19

Oh this was a thing too huh. Jesus christ, what a terrible look and a perfect way to play into the hands of everything Tucker attempted with that interview. This is really the official BLM account? Because I'm equally disgusted by the comments here. The exact wrong move to prevent radicalization.

---

It strikes me as really odd to have a "movement" account be verified at all.

Also it says BLM is 8 years old and indeed that's how old the account is, but I didn't think the term itself came about until much more recently.
---

Oh, I guess it did start with Zimmerman's acquittal.

---

If you think the comments are bad you should check out the quote retweets!

Anyways the reason there is a verified account is because this is for the Black Lives Matter organization, not the movement. These things are not interchangable and there have been plenty of fair criticisms of BLM the organization from people within BLM the movement, mostly around standard NGO finance shit. Not sure if mean tweets is one of those fair criticisms but it does fit their self-promotion angle for whatever that is worth.

---

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

Deets from the Rittenhouse interview with Tucker.

(...)

Worth a watch if anyone is interested.

• tucker
• worth a watch

pick one

---

Tucker's problem is you get the sense he'll throw you under the bus the moment it's convenient for him. Judge Jeanine is super entertaining btw. Thus far I've only seen her go after people who can take it (prominent public figures). I haven't watched a lot so I could be missing stuff.

---

Also there's a reason we have laws against riots. Because herd mentality is dangerous. Yes it sucks for anyone caught up in it but on the other hand, mobocracy sucks for everyone else.

---

HeroicCrono posted...

Tucker's problem is you get the sense he'll throw you under the bus the moment it's convenient for him.

Tucker's problem is all the racism, lies, sensationalism, lies, and racism.

---

"The problem with slavery is that it lacks enough vacation time."
---

Speaking of slavery:

https://twitter.com/goodpoliticguy/status/1462899366579081220?s=21

---

obligatory

https://d3nw1if3cd9gaw.cloudfront.net/images/pet-fox-fire-carlson-2006.jpg

---

How the hell did I set up a segue with that?

*clicks link*

Oh...
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Speaking of slavery:

https://twitter.com/goodpoliticguy/status/1462899366579081220?s=21

LMAO I love how immediately after he says slavery was never based on race he starts describing the creation and legal enshrinement of racism that was invented to justify slavery. Absolutely unreal mental gymnastics on display.

---

I watched the Tucker Carlson interview with my family last night. I'm not a fan of him but it was a significant enough event that I wanted to see what was said.

To me, Tucker's fluffy posturing was apparent, but honestly? I didn't think he was too bad during it, though maybe I was just tuning him out and looking forward to the next time Kyle would speak.

One thing that struck me which I wasn't sure about and haven't gone back to the trial to check - but didn't Rittenhouse say on the stand that he didn't directly hear the Car Source owners invite the help? But on Carlson he definitely implied that they asked him to help. I was a little surprised to see no mention of that anywhere so maybe I'm missing some info.

turbopuns3 posted...

I watched the Tucker Carlson interview with my family last night. I'm not a fan of him but it was a significant enough event that I wanted to see what was said.

To me, Tucker's fluffy posturing was apparent, but honestly? I didn't think he was too bad during it, though maybe I was just tuning him out and looking forward to the next time Kyle would speak.

One thing that struck me which I wasn't sure about and haven't gone back to the trial to check - but didn't Rittenhouse say on the stand that he didn't directly hear the Car Source owners invite the help? But on Carlson he definitely implied that they asked him to help. I was a little surprised to see no mention of that anywhere so maybe I'm missing some info.

The Car Source people asked a bunch of them to help. Like they had talked about helping before that night, and then they asked that Nick guy, Kyle's friend, to gather people to help "seeing what they can do about paying them" and then they were palling around and chatting it up with Kyle and posing for pictures and giving them the keys to the place and showing them around in case they needed to get to the roof or needed to put out fires and stuff.

So. They basically did everything but specifically look at Kyle and say "We want YOU to help."

---

That makes sense.

Notes I'll add:

• Rittenhouse threw out the word "ignorant" to describe people who disregard the facts of his case - yikes, but also, nice!
• He was moved to a different jail for the last three weeks, and he didn't shower that entire time because the running water in his cell didn't work?

turbopuns3 posted...

He was moved to a different jail for the last three weeks, and he didn't shower that entire time because the running water in his cell didn't work?

Spoiler Alert: Our prison system is a nightmare. I actually think certain states in particular have been called out by human rights organizations as inhumane. I want to say Texas is one of them for, among other things, intentionally refusing to implement sufficient air conditioning. Just for the parts where the inmates are kept, they'll gladly add it where staff/janitors/etc. work. Even spending 10+ times more on lawsuits fighting against adding it than it would cost to just fucking install it. And because inmates aren't a sympathetic group of people to most, officials have no fear of just stating publicly that yeah, they're doing this on purpose to make conditions bad.

So I'm not surprised at all by that.

---

Part of the problem is most people get their entire understanding of prison life from movies/tv, so they get normalized to the idea that prison is and more to the point should be hell on earth. Hell you'll find people get outraged when they discover modern technological provisions inmates do get access to, because contrasting that to their misguided media perception sounds too cushy.

---

GuessMyUserName posted...

Part of the problem is most people get their entire understanding of prison life from movies/tv, so they get normalized to the idea that prison is and more to the point should be hell on earth. Hell you'll find people get outraged when they discover modern technological provisions inmates do get access to, because contrasting that to their misguided media perception sounds too cushy.

I agree with this except I'd say that the media portrayals aren't misguiding in that they're either that way by design or just reflective of how our culture already views prison. But it's self-reinforcing.

My takeaway from the outrage over the prison system being leveraged on someone sympathetic is always a bit of an eye roll because the whole thing is usually based on the idea that there are people who "deserve" the horrors of the prison system and others who do not. Which is missing the point for me, but for a lot of people it really is the point.

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

LMAO I love how immediately after he says slavery was never based on race he starts describing the creation and legal enshrinement of racism that was invented to justify slavery. Absolutely unreal mental gymnastics on display.

i love how he says that we recognized that slavery ran counter to the Bill of Rights so we ended it.

I think it was a lot more contentious than that!

---

Jakyl25 posted...

i love how he says that we recognized that slavery ran counter to the Bill of Rights so we ended it.

I think it was a lot more contentious than that!

Also likewe had slavery for almost 100 years. The time between the start of our country to recognizing slavery ran counter to the Bill of Rights is bigger than now to WWI. We had multiple generations of people who were perfectly fine with it.


---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Also likewe had slavery for almost 100 years. The time between the start of our country to recognizing slavery ran counter to the Bill of Rights is bigger than now to WWI.

I'm confused here. 1776 to 1865 is less time than 1918 to now, and it seems kind of weird to mention the Bill of Rights when it didn't exist until well after US independence. (In fact, there was less time between the Bill of Rights and the 13th Amendment than between now and WWII, let alone WWI.) But mostly I'm just confused why anybody would get into this when just pointing out that the race-based slavery system existed before the US is sufficient to make this guy look like an idiot.
---

No, I'm pretty sure everyone woke up one day and the North called up the South and was like:

North: Hey you know this shit's wack, right?
South: Yeah, but let's fight a war first so we can put up a bunch of monuments later that no one should ever take down.
North: Bitchin!

---

Xeybozn posted...

I'm confused here. 1776 to 1865 is less time than 1918 to now, and it seems kind of weird to mention the Bill of Rights when it didn't exist until well after US independence. (In fact, there was less time between the Bill of Rights and the 13th Amendment than between now and WWII, let alone WWI.) But mostly I'm just confused why anybody would get into this when just pointing out that the race-based slavery system existed before the US is sufficient to make this guy look like an idiot.

My brain legitimately calculated from 2001, its almost 2022 and its almost incomprehensible how far we are from the 90s.

---

I wonder what the media narrative would've been if instead, Grosskreutz had shot Rittenhouse and Rittenhouse died.

Heroic Grandmother Abuser, Burglar, and Disgraced EMT Stops Evil, White Supremacist 17 Year Old From Shooting Rampage Against Fiery, But Mostly Peaceful Protestors

---

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

Heroic Grandmother Abuser, Burglar, and Disgraced EMT Stops Evil, White Supremacist 17 Year Old From Shooting Rampage Against Fiery, But Mostly Peaceful Protestors

I chuckled. But do you really think Rittenhouse would be viewed as a villain in this hypothetical?

I mean with all testimony and video being equal up to the interaction where Grosskreutz was shot.

In the real world where Grosskreutz was shot, a jury found Rittenhouse to be acting in self-defense.

Do you think the part of the video of them chasing him down as he's clearly running away, knocking him over the head with a rock, skateboard, then (new version) busting a cap in his skull would be viewed as justified behavior?