January 6, 2021 on MOL

Can someone summarize Terp's POV?  

I thought this thread was about Trump speech and his follower's march to the Capital.


ml1 said:

terp said:

 I can see why, from your perspective, that you think that way.  Yet I'm here answering questions and explaining myself while most just hurl names.  If your perspective was so correct, you'd think people would be able to defend it.  

 congratulations for explaining yourself. 

 Thanks.  Apologies for the crimethink.


jamie said:

Can someone summarize Terp's POV?  

I thought this thread was about Trump speech and his follower's march to the Capital.

 he's been explaining. Don't you get it?


terp said:

 Thanks.  Apologies for the crimethink.

It's not a crime to be a dick.  So no need to apologize. 


terp said:

 I can see why, from your perspective, that you think that way.  Yet I'm here answering questions and explaining myself while most just hurl names.

A couple of posters called you names. Belatedly (ml1 was timelier), thanks for being a sport and going out of your way to accommodate us anyway.

terp said:

Get back to me when you are able to muster some rational thought.


terp said:

ml1 said:

terp said:

 I can see why, from your perspective, that you think that way.  Yet I'm here answering questions and explaining myself while most just hurl names.  If your perspective was so correct, you'd think people would be able to defend it.  

 congratulations for explaining yourself. 

 Thanks.  Apologies for the crimethink.

 Whatever drugs you stopped taking, please reconsider


jamie said:

Can someone summarize Terp's POV?  

I thought this thread was about Trump speech and his follower's march to the Capital.

 Speaking of Yarvin, here's his take on yesterday's events.  While I wouldn't necessarily agree with every word, in effect I think he nails this pretty well.  


jamie said:

Can someone summarize Terp's POV?  

I thought this thread was about Trump speech and his follower's march to the Capital.

 It's usually always the same.  Whatever the thread is about.


terp said:

 Speaking of Yarvin, here's his take on yesterday's events.  While I wouldn't necessarily agree with every word, in effect I think he nails this pretty well.  

"His take" is just some word salad introducing a stream of what I gather is his usual output.  It has negative insight (makes one understand the issues *less* by reading it).


And Ted Cruz is shocked, shocked. 


nohero said:

terp said:

 Speaking of Yarvin, here's his take on yesterday's events.  While I wouldn't necessarily agree with every word, in effect I think he nails this pretty well.  

"His take" is just some word salad introducing a stream of what I gather is his usual output.  It has negative insight (makes one understand the issues *less* by reading it).

 And then people ask me why I don't support democracy 


When Notre Dame (a literal cathedral) caught fire a couple of years ago, it would have been quite the shock if someone responded with laughter. That fire was accidental, but if it had been arson, and someone posted a photo of the arsonist with LMFAO, that would have been even more shocking. That someone could look on the extensive damage of a hugely important part of our shared cultural heritage and see only a building, or worse, see something they were happy to see destroyed, would be hard to imagine. And I'm not even Parisian, much less French.

Similarly, it was a nasty surprise to see terp respond to the storming of the Capitol with laughter. I hadn't realize the distance to which he holds himself apart from his neighbors, and the depth of the contempt he has for us.

But once I got over that, it was actually helpful for reflecting on why I was so shocked and appalled by yesterday's events. In the context of someone like terp, where you can't appeal to assumed common values, it does force you to examine what are some of your baselines you had been assuming.

First, let's be clear about what happened -- an armed mob attempted to use violence to change the results of an election. Yes, they were violent, and they were threatening further violence. They didn't enter the capitol because wanted to have a respectful chat with lawmakers. House and Senate members weren't evacuated by their security details because they thought the mob was going to give them ice cream.

Nor did the mob choose some random time to force their way in. It was specifically when Congress was formalizing Biden's position as the next president. They went there specifically with the purpose of disrupting that, after being encouraged to do so by the current outgoing president who has been refusing to admit he lost. And if they had succeeded in reaching the lawmakers, we do not know would have happened. Would they have injured or killed any of them? If they incapacitated enough House Democrats to erase their voting majority, what then?

This was a real and serious threat to the non-violent transition of power. And that in itself is a huge deal. There are multiple non-violent ways to dispute an election, many of which Trump and his backers have availed themselves of. There have been recounts and over 60 court cases. To turn to violence because they didn't get their way isn't legitimate grievance, it's the logic of civil war.

Further, it does matter who wins an election. There is a difference between invading and occupying Iraq and not doing so. There is a difference between expanding access to health care and restricting it. There is a difference between laws that keep abortion safe and legal and laws that make abortions dangerous and unattainable.

These aren't of course differences that matter to everyone. But that doesn't mean they aren't real, substantive differences, it just tells us about what the person dismissing these differences values.


terp said:

 Yarvin is radical, but super smart and knows his history quite well.  Always a thought provoking and sometimes hilarious read even when you disagree.

 Then he can go live there. I want to live in the future.


terp said:

nohero said:

terp said:

 Speaking of Yarvin, here's his take on yesterday's events.  While I wouldn't necessarily agree with every word, in effect I think he nails this pretty well.  

"His take" is just some word salad introducing a stream of what I gather is his usual output.  It has negative insight (makes one understand the issues *less* by reading it).

 And then people ask me why I don't support democracy 

They probably ask because there hasn't been coherent response to "why don't you".


PVW said:

When Notre Dame (a literal cathedral) caught fire a couple of years ago, it would have been quite the shock if someone responded with laughter. That fire was accidental, but if it had been arson, and someone posted a photo of the arsonist with LMFAO, that would have been even more shocking. That someone could look on the extensive damage of a hugely important part of our shared cultural heritage and see only a building, or worse, see something they were happy to see destroyed, would be hard to imagine. And I'm not even Parisian, much less French.

Similarly, it was a nasty surprise to see terp respond to the storming of the Capitol with laughter. I hadn't realize the distance to which he holds himself apart from his neighbors, and the depth of the contempt he has for us.

But once I got over that, it was actually helpful for reflecting on why I was so shocked and appalled by yesterday's events. In the context of someone like terp, where you can't appeal to assumed common values, it does force you to examine what are some of your baselines you had been assuming.

First, let's be clear about what happened -- an armed mob attempted to use violence to change the results of an election. Yes, they were violent, and they were threatening further violence. They didn't enter the capitol because wanted to have a respectful chat with lawmakers. House and Senate members weren't evacuated by their security details because they thought the mob was going to give them ice cream.

Nor did the mob choose some random time to force their way in. It was specifically when Congress was formalizing Biden's position as the next president. They went there specifically with the purpose of disrupting that, after being encouraged to do so by the current outgoing president who has been refusing to admit he lost. And if they had succeeded in reaching the lawmakers, we do not know would have happened. Would they have injured or killed any of them? If they incapacitated enough House Democrats to erase their voting majority, what then?

This was a real and serious threat to the non-violent transition of power. And that in itself is a huge deal. There are multiple non-violent ways to dispute an election, many of which Trump and his backers have availed themselves of. There have been recounts and over 60 court cases. To turn to violence because they didn't get their way isn't legitimate grievance, it's the logic of civil war.

Further, it does matter who wins an election. There is a difference between invading and occupying Iraq and not doing so. There is a difference between expanding access to health care and restricting it. There is a difference between laws that keep abortion safe and legal and laws that make abortions dangerous and unattainable.

These aren't of course differences that matter to everyone. But that doesn't mean they aren't real, substantive differences, it just tells us about what the person dismissing these differences values.

Honestly,  thank you for that post.  And for at least attempting to understand someone else's point of view.  I do not hold the capital as some sacred ground, as many here do.   I do not worship the federal government like they are gods.  I hate our federal government because I love my country.  I understand why most have this religious fervor.  There are 13 years of school and all kinds of propoganda in the media to reinforce it.  

That being said, while this was a violent mob, I'm not sure exactly what kind of peril the congresspeople were in.  There was only one violent death that Im aware of.  An unarmed protester was shot in the face by security.   I don't recommend watching the video.

And as far as the transition of power, a few hours later Biden was confirmed and Trump said he would concede.  To Yarvins point, there just isn't a lot of there there.

Congress spends billions on security and then cowers when a bunch of their constituents breach the security.  Meanwhile, the will bomb others, perpetuate genocide, and send your kids to war without giving it a 2nd thought.  See below for a sample of what they are perpetuating in Yemen.  Hint: this is what you should be outraged about.  


terp said:

Honestly,  thank you for that post.  And for at least attempting to understand someone else's point of view.  I do not hold the capital as some sacred ground, as many here do.   I do not worship the federal government like they are gods.  I hate our federal government because I love my country.  I understand why most have this religious fervor.  There are 13 years of school and all kinds of propoganda in the media to reinforce it.  

If that's your description of what you think is the point of view of others here, then you don't understand their point of view.


nohero said:

terp said:

 Speaking of Yarvin, here's his take on yesterday's events.  While I wouldn't necessarily agree with every word, in effect I think he nails this pretty well.  

"His take" is just some word salad introducing a stream of what I gather is his usual output.  It has negative insight (makes one understand the issues *less* by reading it).

 it's hard to get past the first paragraph of his "take" where he seems to be claiming that Democrats stole the election.  


terp said:

And for at least attempting to understand someone else's point of view.

For what it’s worth, I’ve never seen a commenter who takes that approach to heart have an issue with his or her reception on MOL.


terp said:

That being said, while this was a violent mob, I'm not sure exactly what kind of peril the congresspeople were in. 

It's easier to say "No harm, no foul" after the event, than if one was in the middle of running from a mob of unknown size and intent. 


ml1 said:

nohero said:

terp said:

 Speaking of Yarvin, here's his take on yesterday's events.  While I wouldn't necessarily agree with every word, in effect I think he nails this pretty well.  

"His take" is just some word salad introducing a stream of what I gather is his usual output.  It has negative insight (makes one understand the issues *less* by reading it).

 it's hard to get past the first paragraph of his "take" where he seems to be claiming that Democrats stole the election.  

 Seriously?  I'm not sure if your reading comprehension is really that low or you are just allergic to other perspectives. 


ml1 said:

 it's hard to get past the first paragraph of his "take" where he seems to be claiming that Democrats stole the election.  

 It's not clear if Yarvin claiming that, or just describing it.  I think he's one of those pompous assclowns who thinks he's profound about not caring about elections at all.


terp said:

PVW said:

When Notre Dame (a literal cathedral) caught fire a couple of years ago, it would have been quite the shock if someone responded with laughter. That fire was accidental, but if it had been arson, and someone posted a photo of the arsonist with LMFAO, that would have been even more shocking. That someone could look on the extensive damage of a hugely important part of our shared cultural heritage and see only a building, or worse, see something they were happy to see destroyed, would be hard to imagine. And I'm not even Parisian, much less French.

Similarly, it was a nasty surprise to see terp respond to the storming of the Capitol with laughter. I hadn't realize the distance to which he holds himself apart from his neighbors, and the depth of the contempt he has for us.

But once I got over that, it was actually helpful for reflecting on why I was so shocked and appalled by yesterday's events. In the context of someone like terp, where you can't appeal to assumed common values, it does force you to examine what are some of your baselines you had been assuming.

First, let's be clear about what happened -- an armed mob attempted to use violence to change the results of an election. Yes, they were violent, and they were threatening further violence. They didn't enter the capitol because wanted to have a respectful chat with lawmakers. House and Senate members weren't evacuated by their security details because they thought the mob was going to give them ice cream.

Nor did the mob choose some random time to force their way in. It was specifically when Congress was formalizing Biden's position as the next president. They went there specifically with the purpose of disrupting that, after being encouraged to do so by the current outgoing president who has been refusing to admit he lost. And if they had succeeded in reaching the lawmakers, we do not know would have happened. Would they have injured or killed any of them? If they incapacitated enough House Democrats to erase their voting majority, what then?

This was a real and serious threat to the non-violent transition of power. And that in itself is a huge deal. There are multiple non-violent ways to dispute an election, many of which Trump and his backers have availed themselves of. There have been recounts and over 60 court cases. To turn to violence because they didn't get their way isn't legitimate grievance, it's the logic of civil war.

Further, it does matter who wins an election. There is a difference between invading and occupying Iraq and not doing so. There is a difference between expanding access to health care and restricting it. There is a difference between laws that keep abortion safe and legal and laws that make abortions dangerous and unattainable.

These aren't of course differences that matter to everyone. But that doesn't mean they aren't real, substantive differences, it just tells us about what the person dismissing these differences values.

Honestly,  thank you for that post.  And for at least attempting to understand someone else's point of view.  I do not hold the capital as some sacred ground, as many here do.   I do not worship the federal government like they are gods.  I hate our federal government because I love my country.  I understand why most have this religious fervor.  There are 13 years of school and all kinds of propoganda in the media to reinforce it.  

That being said, while this was a violent mob, I'm not sure exactly what kind of peril the congresspeople were in.  There was only one violent death that Im aware of.  An unarmed protester was shot in the face by security.   I don't recommend watching the video.

And as far as the transition of power, a few hours later Biden was confirmed and Trump said he would concede.  To Yarvins point, there just isn't a lot of there there.

Congress spends billions on security and then cowers when a bunch of their constituents breach the security.  Meanwhile, the will bomb others, perpetuate genocide, and send your kids to war without giving it a 2nd thought.  See below for a sample of what they are perpetuating in Yemen.  Hint: this is what you should be outraged about.  

 it's possible to be outraged over both our country's endless wars AND Trumpism at the same time.  Your contention that objecting to Trump's clumsy coup attempt is a de facto endorsement of our country's endless wars, and all its other abuses of civil liberties, doesn't even logically follow.  It's just you showing your bias against the people you don't agree with.


terp said:

 Seriously?  I'm not sure if your reading comprehension is really that low or you are just allergic to other perspectives. 

 my reading comprehension is fine.  It's Yarvin being cute by keeping enough distance that one can't be sure if he believes that or not.  


Maybe she wants her money back since this Revolution Vacation didn't turn out to her liking.  


nohero said:

It's easier to say "No harm, no foul" after the event, than if one was in the middle of running from a mob of unknown size and intent. 

 and some of them were carrying guns, so impossible in the moment to know how many of them were armed.


ml1 said:

terp said:

 Seriously?  I'm not sure if your reading comprehension is really that low or you are just allergic to other perspectives. 

 my reading comprehension is fine.  It's Yarvin being cute by keeping enough distance that one can't be sure if he believes that or not.  

 Ummmmm.  He is constructing propoganda that is factual but misleading to illustrate what the corporate press does every day.  He points this out in paragraph 3.  


ml1 said:

nohero said:

It's easier to say "No harm, no foul" after the event, than if one was in the middle of running from a mob of unknown size and intent. 

 and some of them were carrying guns, so impossible in the moment to know how many of them were armed.

 To be clear.  They were carrying guns and not wearing uniforms?!?!


nohero said:

Maybe she wants her money back since this Revolution Vacation didn't turn out to her liking.  

LOL at the end of that video.  You mess with the bull and you get the horns.  


is a "knife through hot butter" supposed to be clever?


ml1 said:

terp said:

PVW said:

When Notre Dame (a literal cathedral) caught fire a couple of years ago, it would have been quite the shock if someone responded with laughter. That fire was accidental, but if it had been arson, and someone posted a photo of the arsonist with LMFAO, that would have been even more shocking. That someone could look on the extensive damage of a hugely important part of our shared cultural heritage and see only a building, or worse, see something they were happy to see destroyed, would be hard to imagine. And I'm not even Parisian, much less French.

Similarly, it was a nasty surprise to see terp respond to the storming of the Capitol with laughter. I hadn't realize the distance to which he holds himself apart from his neighbors, and the depth of the contempt he has for us.

But once I got over that, it was actually helpful for reflecting on why I was so shocked and appalled by yesterday's events. In the context of someone like terp, where you can't appeal to assumed common values, it does force you to examine what are some of your baselines you had been assuming.

First, let's be clear about what happened -- an armed mob attempted to use violence to change the results of an election. Yes, they were violent, and they were threatening further violence. They didn't enter the capitol because wanted to have a respectful chat with lawmakers. House and Senate members weren't evacuated by their security details because they thought the mob was going to give them ice cream.

Nor did the mob choose some random time to force their way in. It was specifically when Congress was formalizing Biden's position as the next president. They went there specifically with the purpose of disrupting that, after being encouraged to do so by the current outgoing president who has been refusing to admit he lost. And if they had succeeded in reaching the lawmakers, we do not know would have happened. Would they have injured or killed any of them? If they incapacitated enough House Democrats to erase their voting majority, what then?

This was a real and serious threat to the non-violent transition of power. And that in itself is a huge deal. There are multiple non-violent ways to dispute an election, many of which Trump and his backers have availed themselves of. There have been recounts and over 60 court cases. To turn to violence because they didn't get their way isn't legitimate grievance, it's the logic of civil war.

Further, it does matter who wins an election. There is a difference between invading and occupying Iraq and not doing so. There is a difference between expanding access to health care and restricting it. There is a difference between laws that keep abortion safe and legal and laws that make abortions dangerous and unattainable.

These aren't of course differences that matter to everyone. But that doesn't mean they aren't real, substantive differences, it just tells us about what the person dismissing these differences values.

Honestly,  thank you for that post.  And for at least attempting to understand someone else's point of view.  I do not hold the capital as some sacred ground, as many here do.   I do not worship the federal government like they are gods.  I hate our federal government because I love my country.  I understand why most have this religious fervor.  There are 13 years of school and all kinds of propoganda in the media to reinforce it.  

That being said, while this was a violent mob, I'm not sure exactly what kind of peril the congresspeople were in.  There was only one violent death that Im aware of.  An unarmed protester was shot in the face by security.   I don't recommend watching the video.

And as far as the transition of power, a few hours later Biden was confirmed and Trump said he would concede.  To Yarvins point, there just isn't a lot of there there.

Congress spends billions on security and then cowers when a bunch of their constituents breach the security.  Meanwhile, the will bomb others, perpetuate genocide, and send your kids to war without giving it a 2nd thought.  See below for a sample of what they are perpetuating in Yemen.  Hint: this is what you should be outraged about.  

 it's possible to be outraged over both our country's endless wars AND Trumpism at the same time.  Your contention that objecting to Trump's clumsy coup attempt is a de facto endorsement of our country's endless wars, and all its other abuses of civil liberties, doesn't even logically follow.  It's just you showing your bias against the people you don't agree with.

 I never made this argument.    Generally speaking, I don't see very much outrage over these wars around these parts. 


In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.