361
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 07 Jan 2024
361 points (97.9% liked)
politics
19072 readers
2310 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
On the face of it, it is manifestly reasonable to say that you'll certify on the condition that the election is free and fair- that is, after all, always the condition of doing so. But that's not what she's saying here- she's repeating claims that 2020 was invalid
In reality it's extremely unlikely that the election in 2024 will be unfair or rigged against the GOP, and she deserves all the opprobrium she has coming her way for creating the impression (for her audience) that an unfair election is likely to occur or that 2020 was rigged or illegal. After all, that's the rhetorical setup MAGA created in the run-up to 2020: if they lost, it was unfair (and therefore, time to do a treason/coup).
Her rhetoric here could simply be a prediction that 2024 will be an illegitimate election, or it could be a cue for her audience to prepare to accept or commit political violence in 2024- and as such, it is a textbook example of stochastic terrorism and should be understood as such. Also the media that declines to note this should be evaluated as enabling, vs. holding to account
ship of theseus arguments are their stock in trade. You start with a statement no one could disagree with, like "I will vote to certify the election if it seems like a free and fair election. If it seems otherwise, I will lead an investigation that will root out fraud and ensure the people's voices are heard." Then you start doing string substitutions:
"it seems like a free and fair election" gets subbed for "Trump wins"
"it seems otherwise" == "Trump loses"
"lead an investigation that will root out fraud" == "obstruct the proceedings"
"the people's voices are heard" == "Trump is installed as dictator for life"
Then you pretend you never made those substitutions, and you get to rhetorically hammer your opponents for being against free and fair elections and in favor of fraud. After all, everyone else heard the very reasonable "I will vote to certify the election if it seems like a free and fair election. If it seems otherwise, I will lead an investigation that will root out fraud and ensure the people's voices are heard." But the party faithful clearly heard: "I will vote to certify the election if Trump wins. If Trump loses, I will obstruct the proceedings and ensure Trump is installed as dictator for life."
Innuendo Studios has a great video about how the Christian Nationalist terrorists use their media pipelines to establish public vs private definitions of phrases, and then use those equivocated phrases to say one thing to the general public and another thing to their base.
Yes, if they couldn't ship unpopular politics misleadingly as uncontroversial feel-good slam-dunks, they'd never get any support in politics. It's a pity that sort of rhetoric works as well as it does
Also Innuendo's work is fantastic