[tomtom]

It is in everybody’s interest that the fizzle is emphasised, rather than the potential.

Yes,

[abarro81]

conflicting truths

  but this seemingly modern-left-wing usage of "truth" really winds me up, whether it's "conflicting truths" or "my truth" or whatever. Surely this makes a mockery of the meaning of the word and is just a thinly veiled attempt to add extra credibility to "experience" or "views" which is a better description. Would love to be convinced otherwise so that FB posts from some people wind me up less 

[mrjonathanr]

the only real difference between that an actual, successful, coup, is whether or not the actual carry out their scheme.

Yes, totally. If I take a sparkler into the Houses of Parliament, wave it about and call for an uprising it's an attempted coup, however risible, because it is an illegitimate attempt to seize power.

Let me give you an example. Spain is a democracy because Juan Carlos, despite being groomed for dictatorship by Franco, chose to hold elections in '77,  2 years after becoming king. in 1981 Lt-Colonel Tejero rode into the chamber on a horse, waved (and fired) a handgun about, and effectively held the diputados hostage for the afternoon whilst calling for martial law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1981_Spanish_coup_d%27état_attempt

The army did not take to the streets. We have Juan Carlos to thank for that again. Had he said otherwise,don't doubt martial law would have been imposed.

Loony lone-wolf stuff (with sympathisers, obviously). But it could have had a different outcome.

Attempted coups don't have to be grand affairs to be dangerous, both at the time, and where they lead people to go next.

[mrjonathanr]

My worry is that by failing to treat it with the seriousness that is due we leave ourselves vulnerable to the next stage, and the next,

+1

[seankenny]

The putsch is a very powerful advertisement for American fascism and will make it a lot easier to recruit. And it is broadly supported by republican voters (45% support, with 43% against, according to YouGov). It was a lot better organised than the famous Beer Hall Putsch I would say.

It is very hard for me to stay optimistic.

“You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? They're racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic – you name it. And unfortunately, there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.”

Are we going to quibble over 5 percentage points?

[Ru]

If you really want a flavour of what Trump's most diehard supporters are thinking and planning have a look at thedonald .win which is the spin-off forum from the banned group on reddit.

A warning: it will rapidly erode your sanity. It's a mixture of unhinged pro-trump statements (where anyone posting anything even slightly realistic, if negative, is banned for being a "doomer"), conspiracy theories, threats to kill "leftists," and "communists" (the definition of which seems to be anyone that's not 100% pro trump), hate speak etc. Reading what the members of site were thinking as they set off/travelled to Washington DC gave a good insight into why things went down as they did, the level of organistion (or lack thereof, although sub groups may have been more organised) and their expectations of what would happen (from supporting Trump at a rally, to starting a civil war).

[Oldmanmatt]

If you really want a flavour of what Trump's most diehard supporters are thinking and planning have a look at thedonald .win which is the spin-off forum from the banned group on reddit.

A warning: it will rapidly erode your sanity. It's a mixture of unhinged pro-trump statements (where anyone posting anything even slightly realistic, if negative, is banned for being a "doomer"), conspiracy theories, threats to kill "leftists," and "communists" (the definition of which seems to be anyone that's not 100% pro trump), hate speak etc. Reading what the members of site were thinking as they set off/travelled to Washington DC gave a good insight into why things went down as they did, the level of organistion (or lack thereof) and their expectations of what would happen (from supporting Trump at a rally, to starting a civil war).

The thing is, such events don’t require detailed planning, at that level. Such mobs only require a little geeing up and a shove in the general direction.

It really does seem there might have been a higher level of planning though. The plan fell apart because, no Reps were seized, the Ballots were evacuated, the FBI were clearly ready and stepped in (you can readily find informed opinion about how odd that was, even quite right wing quasi-miltary pundits are pointing that out: https://www.instagram.com/p/CJuOh8BKsGp/?igshid=vyv5z01ikc5s So there’s more to it than has been acknowledged, officially).
The VA and Maryland Governors, acted so swiftly, it’s hard to see it as unexpected on their part and given their actions, they almost certainly saw it as a very serious coup attempt.
Just as the lack of action by the DC guard, is weird.

Nah, this was chess, not a crap shoot. Trump (or more probably his backers) were out manoeuvred. Possibly by luck, but not entirely.

[Johnny Brown]

conflicting truths

  but this seemingly modern-left-wing usage of "truth" really winds me up, whether it's "conflicting truths" or "my truth" or whatever. Surely this makes a mockery of the meaning of the word and is just a thinly veiled attempt to add extra credibility to "experience" or "views" which is a better description. Would love to be convinced otherwise so that FB posts from some people wind me up less 

No, it's an adult appreciation of the fact that in big, complex situations all you have are interpretations. There's no arguing with certain facts, but deciding what caused what is completely different.

[andy popp]

conflicting truths

  but this seemingly modern-left-wing usage of "truth" really winds me up, whether it's "conflicting truths" or "my truth" or whatever. Surely this makes a mockery of the meaning of the word and is just a thinly veiled attempt to add extra credibility to "experience" or "views" which is a better description. Would love to be convinced otherwise so that FB posts from some people wind me up less 

I understand what you mean about the relatavism of all experiences/truths/opinions being valid. But when it comes to complex historical events - like the one we witnessed yesterday - "truth" is in fact a very difficult concept. There are historical facts - D-Day occured on 6th June 1944 - but they are mostly banal and not very important. But as soon as there is any complexity, the idea that there can be one true historical account becomes a fallacy (accounts can be accurate or inaccurate, but that's not the same thing). To say this isn't necessarily to assign equal validity to all accounts (David Irvings accounts of the Holocaust were both inaccurate and invalid) but we should still be wary of any claim to be giving the true account. People are often not comfortable with this version of history and typically want clear, neat stories (normally the ones they already know) that resemble morality tales. Historians seem to be very unpopular with much of the public at the moment - see the recent National Trust and slavery furore - because our profession is about messiness and contingency. In response historians get ridiculed as "revisionists." All historians are revisionists and all historical accounts are provisional interpretations. And that will be no different for the eventual accounts of how we got to the events of yesterday.

Of course, there have already been lots of pronouncements about the work future historians will have to do. My Twitter is very largely American historians and the general reaction last night was "Stuff that. We've been trying to tell you for the last four years and we're tired."

[andy popp]

Cross-posting: what Adam said.

[abarro81]

Yeah, I'm ok with history being a mishmash rather than a truth/set of facts. I just feel like the word has been twisted recently for dubious reasons by the more "woke" progressives I see on FB, and JB's post reminded me of my dislike of it. Ironically the same people pushing "individual truths" would be laughing at "alternative facts". Just suck it up and deal with the fact that experiences and views aren't fact or truth! Plenty of other ways to articulate these things in our language.

JB: you seem to have missed my point, which is that there can easily be alternative interpretations and multi-faceted causes, but "conflicting truths" strikes me as an oxymoron or twisting of the meaning of the word. Truth/facts can't be conflicting, and if they appear to be then it probably tells you your models/assumptions are wrong. Open to being convinced on why this is wrong semantically, but right now it winds me up an inexplicable amount

[mrjonathanr]

conflicting truths

  but this seemingly modern-left-wing usage of "truth" really winds me up, whether it's "conflicting truths" or "my truth" or whatever. Surely this makes a mockery of the meaning of the word and is just a thinly veiled attempt to add extra credibility to "experience" or "views" which is a better description. Would love to be convinced otherwise so that FB posts from some people wind me up less 

No, it's an adult appreciation of the fact that in big, complex situations all you have are interpretations. There's no arguing with certain facts, but deciding what caused what is completely different.

Like whether an ascent using knee bars really ‘counts’, that sort of thing?

[petejh]

Andy, there's nothing about what you said about bigger picture/strategy that I disagree with. I've already said I find it odd how 'seemingly' unprepared the Capitol defences were.. I was saying much the same as Matt - that in that moment, to initiate a bloodbath - which is what overwhelmed law enforcement officers would have to do to beat back that mob last night before support arrived, shoot them - would have led to a much worse situation across the US today. By luck or (my suspicion) good judgement by the law enforcement present, the US avoided a worse outcome.

This was potentially much more serious an outcome than BLM rioting. The DC area is a gun-free zone for good reasons, but in gun-carrying states last night there were heavily armed groups of Trump supporters encamped outside government buildings, itching for an excuse to fight. If that had happened we'd be in a very much worse place today. All it may have took was a few more scared law enforcement starting to shoot in the Capitol building. The attempted coup looks like it failed because 1. Trump is lazy, stupid and shit at organising. 2. His supporters are mostly the same. 3. The agencies didn't pour fuel on the flame (including by no-platforming him).

My suspicion is this was a somewhat planned-for outcome by the intelligence community. The dogs on the street know Trump's behaviour and his malevolent narcissism, everybody knew about the protest, and everybody knows how crazy a core of his support are. Doesn't take much intelligence gathering to predict what could unfold. There's no way the US intelligence community didn't foresee this. It smells like political/intelligence judo to me - let your enemy's attack be their downfall. Yesterday Trump was given the rope to hang himself. The politicians now need to have the strength to use it to hang him with. I 100% agree with you that he should be removed right now, and then face charges. Anything else encourages the rot to grow.

Also what Barrows said about truth. 

[Oldmanmatt]

Well fuck me bendy, the Zombie finally acts:



Bill Barr didn’t mince his words much either. Duplicitous little toad. Quite irritating to agree with him.

[mrjonathanr]

I think he may have missed out the bit after

Following the certification of the election results by Congress, the priority is

 which reads
 

.. to ingratiate our organisation with Joe Biden’s administration, the new power in town...

[jwi]

With two weeks to go it is apparently possible to find a semblance of uprightness even among some of the most spineless.

[andy popp]

Thanks Pete. I do understand the point you are making in your second paragraph, but I think that in the end we will have to agree to disagree. I do feel that every time they are given any consideration or leeway, they will take a mile, making a real conflagration ultimately more likely. There's a straight line from the attempt to storm the Michigan State Capitol in the summer to yesterday. And I know it deeply pains Black Americans to witness White people being allowed to get aways with this (or to be arrested unharmed after carrying out horrific crimes) whilst a Black person can be killed by a cop whilst sleeping in their bed.

[DAVETHOMAS90]

Here's a great article about cognitive ease and illusions of truth:

https://byrslf.co/cognitive-ease-and-illusions-of-truth-26e7d1ea18b2?gi=23a5239f7c3b

Very often, we want to support what is familiar to us. That is how Trump manipulates his support.

Often we want to invest "reasons for things"/causes, because it's uncomfortable when events don't support past experience. Uncomfortable, and untrue, aren't of course the same things.

Ref Andy's great post above, and JB's comment on "causes".

[mrjonathanr]

Interesting that Dave, would have liked to have read a more developed version. Does irritate when people don’t know the difference between comprise/compose of though!

[teestub]

So was that Zuc declaring that Trump is no longer the sitting president? I thought it had been ruled that Trump’s social media formed part of the presidential public record or something.

[Oldmanmatt]

So was that Zuc declaring that Trump is no longer the sitting president? I thought it had been ruled that Trump’s social media formed part of the presidential public record or something.

This is what I mentioned yesterday. And was used by Twatter, as a reason to allow continued use around the “Many fine people” era.

I expect, even if they haven’t been given a Vice-presidential nod, Facebook recognise it will take greater than two weeks for Trump to challenge them through the courts.

I still think Trump is, effectively, already removed, or at least muted.

[Oldmanmatt]

Here’s a military take on the DC National Guard question. I think some read between lines is required and the object of this article is to point out exactly who is responsible. The 340 DC Guardsmen, deliberately unarmed and stationed a considerable distance from the Capitol, is a pretty big red flag:
https://taskandpurpose.com/news/national-guard-response-capitol-hill-riots/?fbclid=IwAR3CnQgN9X6HgmKC56Kwp_nWP2jYZyZpZzLY1tEWbjiNRc_p8J1O0E2Itf8

[teestub]

Just one story from last night 🤯
https://mobile.twitter.com/holmescnn/status/1346987917273608194

[webbo]

Just one story from last night 🤯
https://mobile.twitter.com/holmescnn/status/1346987917273608194

According to the posts lower down , she’s got an onion in the towel. So she’s falsely claiming to be maced.
Only in a America.

[Will Hunt]

It's interesting that this has come round to truth and the deciding of what it is. To me, the thing at the root of this is social media, without which Trump could not do what he has done. If we don't manage to reign in the darker side of social media we'll continue to see this and things like it as more and more people fall under the spell of conspiracy theories and violently polarised debate.

What's not been mentioned on this thread is that each of those people who entered the Capitol believes, earnestly, that Trump won the election but that the vote was rigged. If that were the case, surely direct action is justified?

If you were to try and explain to these people that what they believe is wrong, they would look at you like you were crazy and blind to what is so obviously the truth. They believe it, their friends believe it, their family believes it, their president believes it, the people they speak with online definitely believe it. You'd be a liberal, a communist, a sheeple, antifa. The deeper people sink into the lie, the more that they reinforce each other's views. It's not just happening to the right.