I think it takes a particularly steelman interpretation to see the content of Giuliani's "trial by combat" speech as not insurrectionist.
“So let’s have trial by combat! I’m willing to stake my reputation, the president is willing to stake his reputation on the fact that we’re going to find criminality there.”
> last summer
Sure, there are democrats who turned too much of a blind-eye to violence over the past summer. But I find it fallacious in the extreme to equate reducing a police budget with insurrection. For the particular New York exception, the budget cut to NYPD came to about 10% of the budget, which very closely tracks New York's budget shortfall as a result of the Covid exodus from the city (12% budget shortfall) [0].
> head-on-a-pike
“I’d actually like to go back to the old times of Tudor England. I’d put the heads on pikes. I’d put them at the two corners of the White House as a warning to federal bureaucrats,” he explained, as Media Matters for America first reported.
“You either get with the program or you’re gone ― time to stop playing games,” Bannon added. “Blow it all up.”
“That’s how you win the revolution,” Bannon said. “The revolution wasn’t some sort of garden party. It was a civil war.”
Even when one takes that statement as charitably as you do, it doesn't help the level of discourse.
> Left leaning celebrities
I said upthread, I believe we should be moving corporate moderation etc into a local government due process. IMO the Texas DA (for example) should be able to ask Twitter to moderate a statement like that, and have the moderation heard in court. But Snoop Dogg doesn't hold nuclear codes, or hold the ear of the person who does.
[0] https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2020-city-budget-police-d...
If the content is criminal to knowingly carry, they can. (And not just “ask”, they can notify Twitter and inform them they will file criminal charges otherwise.)
If its lawful content, law enforcement at any level has no business getting involved, that’s kind of the point of the First Amendment.
But Twitter also isn’t (unless it has a contract in place obligating it to someone) required to carry any content, just because they aren’t legally prohibited from doing so. That’s also what the First Amendment is about.
> But I find it fallacious in the extreme to equate reducing a police budget with insurrection.
It's not just the reduction of the NYC police budget that I am referring to as insurrection. It's the post-George-Floyd rioting, and the extreme comments made by certain leaders of these movements that I see as insurrectionist. In many cities across the country, government buildings were vandalised/looted, the Portland Federal courthouse set on fire being an example [1]. In another example, Patrisse Cullors, co-founder of the BLM organization, has referred to herself and another co-founder as "trained marxists", and cites Mao Tse-tung as political inspiration [2][3]. In another case, the BLM Chicago organizer Latrell Allen publicly supported looting, likening it to a form of reparations [4]. And, I want to be clear, I am not criticizing entirety of the BLM movement, simply the factions that have made extreme statements or engaged in violence. Would you classify these as insurrectionist as well?
> the budget cut to NYPD came to about 10% of the budget, which very closely tracks New York's budget shortfall as a result of the Covid exodus from the city
Even taking into the consideration the budget shortfall, the NYPD was defunded significantly out-of-proportion in regards to other agencies. In fact, from your quote alone, it seems like the NYPD bore the entire brunt of the NYC budget shortfall. So even though there was a budget shortfall, I would still consider the NYPD to have been intentionally defunded. FYI, here are statistics on the NYC crime rate after the budget cuts [5].
> But Snoop Dogg doesn't hold nuclear codes, or hold the ear of the person who does.
Yes, thank you, Snoop Dogg indeed doesn't hold the nuclear codes, but celebrities and Hollywood in general holds influence amongst the population, and they certainly hold the ears of politicians as well.
> Even when one takes that statement as charitably as you do, it doesn't help the level of discourse.
I don't think I'm taking the statements charitably, I'm trying to separate analogy from intent; however, I agree that such rhetoric certainly doesn't help discourse. I would even go on to say that in the ears of extremists, such rhetoric is dangerous and provocative. But, in the Bannon quotes you mentioned, I personally don't interpret him as speaking in a literal sense. As someone who occasionally tuned into Bannon's show, Bannon's ultimate objective seems to be to take down the CCP. Since we are already engaged in a political/cyber/information war with China (which hopefully doesn't escalate into a kinetic war), Bannon tends to frame everything leading up to a confrontation with China with war analogies. But again, such rhetoric will not help his cause, and I agree that it can be dangerous.
[1] https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/police-declare-riot-...
[2] (go to 7:03 for the quote) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCghDx5qN4s&feature=emb_titl...
[3] https://www.dazeddigital.com/politics/article/39587/1/black-...
[4] https://www.wbez.org/stories/winning-has-come-through-revolt...
[5] https://abc7ny.com/nyc-crime-shooting-nypd-defund-the-police...
Shouldn't you be? It's kind of important to defending him...
> In fact, from your quote alone, it seems like the NYPD bore the entire brunt of the NYC budget shortfall.
That isn't how percentages work. Say NYPD is 20% of the NYC budget, a 10% cut to NYPD would be 2% of a cut to the entire budget.
1. The left is generally good; the right is generally evil.
2. The goal of leftists is equality and harmony for all. The goal of rightists is to eliminate Jews/blacks/LGBTQ/etc.
3. Leftist rhetoric must be taken at face value, or at least as innocuously as possible; rightist rhetoric must be treated as a secret coded dogwhistle message that actually calls for war, genocide, or other unspeakable horrors. When a rightists uses conflict-related metaphors they are certainly to be taken at face value, whereas a leftist going on about "slicey bois" is certainly not a threat.
4. Accordingly, leftist violence must be considered either the relatively harmless or completely justified actions of a single individual or relatively small group of individuals with no coordination larger than a single cell taking place ("antifa is not a group, it's an idea"). Rightist violence must be considered to be highly coordinated, with individual attacks receiving secret coded dogwhistle instructions, directly or indirectly, from the top thought leaders on the right including the POTUS if he be Republican. ("stochastic terrorism").
5. Therefore, leftist violence is to be grimly tolerated at worst -- hopefully actively supported and encouraged as an essential step toward a more just society. Rightist violence is to be met with swift punishment not just for the offender, but their family, pets, and anyone caught displaying any sympathy for them. Anyone questioning the narrative that these are terrorist operatives taking orders from the top are to be shunned and shut out of decent society by decent people, and certainly not allowed to communicate.
I make no statements as to the truth or falsity of the above.I think it's a bit more nuanced than the extremes of either side will care to admit. But these are the rhetorical rules you have to deal with because if you don't, louder voices will drown you out and eventually shun you.
The power matters, burning down the government is different than burning down a Wendy’s.
No one was planning the looting of a store three weeks in advance, and this is a really large difference being a riot representing the (unproductive) language of the unheard, and an insurrectionist plot.
The nightly riots in Portland and other cities were planned and organized in advance through messaging and social apps as well as with physical posters. You can find the screen caps and photos online if you look. There were also several instances where groups of people were arrested after crossing state lines to attend riots. Both sides have bad actors and no one is absolved. The main contention here seems to be that many people rightly want the law applied equally to both sides but there is a clear bias evidenced by the amnesia or blindness that people seem to be suffering regarding the last year.
If people just went to a protest expecting some possible light violence, I don't see how that's comparable. Would you make OWS or G7 protests illegal because people going there rightly expect tear gas and batons?
However, while there certainly were some riots in the summer done out of spontaneous rage, there certainly were planned events as well. For example, the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone in Seattle, which lasted 3 weeks:
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/7/2/21310109/ch...
Also the 100 consecutive days of protest in Portland, where the federal courthouse was set on fire:
https://apnews.com/article/b57315d97dd2146c4a89b4636faa7b70 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8z0jFxOmFo&ab_channel=Bloom...
As for the peaceful protesters on Capitol Hill, I think they tend to be a bit misunderstood as well. These folks often get grouped into the extreme right, but in reality, they are moreso moderate people who face a harsh economic reality caused by the outsourcing of manufacturing jobs, the automation of jobs, and losing jobs to regulations. They also seem to be the population most affected by the Opioid epidemic. However, the left-wing media has an agenda that is increasingly focused on identity politics, and not the economic realities that they face. Instead, these folks are constantly painted as racist, uncultured, and extreme by the left-wing media. So lots of them are left with no choice but to support Trump in spite of his delusions, not for them. So I personally don't paint the entirety of the MAGA crowd as the enemy; many are reluctant supporters.
But again, the insurrectionists and the violent protesters at Capitol Hill should be punished. But for sake of consistency, perhaps we should also be also outraged at the riots that occurred this past summer, especially the ones that caused loss of life and/or damaged government buildings?
This is facilitating illegal insurrection? And NYC is your example...
Surely this could have nothing to do with covid and the whatever else but a 112% increase in shootings must be the consequence of a budget cut of a bit more than 1%.... Have you perhaps considered who it is that is registering this uptick in crime and drawing the connections? Why it was the insanely high to begin with. Like what? Do their janitors earn a million yearly?
Not having a slightly less mindblowing budget is not meaningfully facilitating illegal insurrection it's slightly more sane fiscal policy
The topic is complicated, COVID + "Defund" + Other topics increasing crime in NYC.
To me, the crime is high due to the unfortunate realities of inner city gang culture. Yes, historical factors cannot be ignored, and yes, police misconduct also does exist. Police reform is necessary, but a $1 billion budget cut ignores the reality of urban crime, and seem to cause a greater net amount of deaths, and the victims will unfortunately be mostly black/brown. Listening to a few of the chart-topping, yet violent rap songs should give an unfortunate indication of the current state of gang culture, and why the police provide an imperfect-yet-needed check to gang members.
But on the other hand, why would COVID cause an increase in shootings/murder? I could understand if there was an uptick in robberies, but from the data I’ve seen, the uptick is in shooting and murder.
The related lockdowns and such could play a role. I wasn't putting it forward as the sole factor but to me it seems more likely that this among other things like the police reporting differently because they're mad playing a bigger roll in a bloody 112% increase. That's a whole lot you realise that right?
Which brings me back to some of those questions left unanswered:
How do you tie a bit more than 1% decrease in budget to a 112% increase in shootings?
Do you have any reasonable argument for that?
Why do they spend such a ridiculously insane amount per employee, in total or however which way you want to calculate it?
Can you justify this given the results?
I can't name democrats who facilitated ilegal insurrection in regards to this past election, but I can name democrats who facilitated illegal insurrection against their own communities after the George Floyd incident. The democrats who refused to call out rioting and looting (as a separate incident from the peaceful protesting), those who called for the short-sighted defunding of police departments in cities with high crime (look up the uptick in shootings and murder in NYC after the city removed $1 billion from the police department) have meaningfully facilitated illegal insurrection in their own communities, in my opinion.
I agree that Bannon does make egregious comments, but I tend to think the media blows his comments out of proportion. Due to his military background, he often uses war analogies, which make for the detestable quotes you mention. For example, in the Fauci "head-on-a-pike" comment that he made, it was clear to me that he was not suggesting for folks to literally murder Fauci. He was suggesting for an example to be made out of Fauci by removing him from power. It's similar to when athletes say they want to "kill" the opposing teams. Regardless of this, I agree with you that comments such as the one I mentioned are in bad taste.
On the other hand, left-leaning celebrities who posted picture depicting Trunp's dead body (e.g. Snoop Dogg) did not seem to face similar consequences from big tech.