[Discussion] What comes next? Liber-all

American liberals and progressives now face their biggest challenge in a generation: What do we do with 4 years of a trump presidency, a republican congress, a likely conservative supreme court and most states under complete republican control?

This thread is not meant as a forum for discussing HOW or WHY democrats got destroyed in the 2016 election. It's meant for finding a way forward.

boogle wrote:
thrawn82 wrote:

MLK got 'burned' repeatedly in his efforts to fight the status quo, eventually suffered the ultimate burn at a hotel outside of Memphis.

This is a nuclear bad post, especially the day after MLK day.

Why? Is it the word "burned"? Otherwise it seems to perfectly describe why I believe she shouldn't ignore her critics.

Yes, using the phrase "ultimate burn" to describe assassination is bad.

theoretical bad post wrote:

Allende suffered the ultimate burn after Pinochet's military coup

boogle wrote:

Yes, using the phrase "ultimate burn" to describe assassination is bad.

theoretical bad post wrote:

Allende suffered the ultimate burn after Pinochet's military coup

I was not aware of this reference, it was not intentional. editing.

bekkilyn wrote:

Personally, I'd suggest just muting Twitter altogether.

However, I support AOC in speaking out on whatever platforms are available to her...after all, she isn't really going to have the luxury of muting anything being in the public spotlight as she is as a candidate.

I have no issues with AOC speaking out and using her platforms to further her ides, which I support. My issue is her retweeting and giving right wing trolls a larger audience. And I'm not talking about your run of the mill alt-right jerkwad on the internet. I mean the big movers like Candace Owens and others. If the alt-right pundits move her to respond, she should just use the moment to say what she has to say without naming or linking to them.

Instead, she retweets and links to their threads, giving them exactly what they want, which is showing their base how they own the libs. Her truthfulness and smart responses do not matter in this realm. Instead, it is twisted and used to grow the attacks on her and socialism. While she is going her supporters what the want, meme worthy beatdowns of the alt-right, the is also giving the alt-right what it wants.

As of now, Twitter is my only social media presence, and it is on a short leash. I absolutely cultivate my feed to provide insights from journalists and others that have smart and important things to share, as well as personal stuff I am interested in. I follow very few people I know, as that is the quickest way back into the meme heavy feed that is the primary attribute of Facebook that drove me off (to be fair, Facebook as a slew of problems that forced me off of it).

I muted AOC, not because I disagree with her ideas, but because she keeps going the worst of the the alt-right a platform. It's the reason I think HRC's biggest mistake in the campaign was ever mentioning Trump's name. She should have let pundits take him down while taking the high road. The trolls need to be targeted and dealt with. But engaging with them is the wrong way to do it.

Wired: 'HE WHO MUST NOT BE NAMED': WHAT ALEX JONES AND VOLDEMORT HAVE IN COMMON

Jones is a kind of real-world Voldemort. Speak his name to condemn his conspiracy theories and you draw more attention to his hateful ideas. It’s like fighting fire with oxygen tanks instead of fire extinguishers. The tools breathe more life into the flames.

This is attention-gaming, and Jones excels at it. At the hearings, Jones sat behind Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey as they testified, streaming the action from his phone. He heckled Marco Rubio as the senator talked to reporters. His stunts blew up online and got him into The New York Times.

Jones has been spreading his rage-fueled disinformation for a while, but I have rarely written about him publicly. With the exception of three tweets among tens of thousands I’ve posted, I haven’t referred to Jones by name on Twitter. He was “you know who” to me. This was a deliberate decision; I knew that he counted on his critics to amplify his message. I didn’t want to broaden the reach of his curse.

So why am I naming him now? That fuss Jones made at the Capitol was a last gasp. He’d just been banned from YouTube, Facebook, Apple, and Spotify. Soon after, he was also banned from Twitter.

He’d been deplatformed.

Now that his Voldemort-like powers have vanished, it’s not just possible to discuss Jones—it’s necessary. His deplatforming is easy to celebrate. Though some may wish that good speech is the best way to drive out bad speech, the harms he perpetrated can’t be dealt with in the marketplace of ideas. There is no reasoned debate or enlightened compromise with the idea that parents of children gunned down at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut were just actors in a false-flag operation later used to promote gun control. Nor is there anything to say about his claim that KKK members are “just Jewish actors” pretending to be Nazis. (Lots of actors in his world.) Yet while I’m happy that Jones has lost his megaphone, I’m troubled both by the system that let him have it and the way it was taken away. Simply put, the influential digital platforms are built to generate more Voldemorts, while also amassing worrisome amounts of centralized power.

The platforms are in the business of harvesting attention, and Jones and his kind are good at delivering it. Jones’ supporters lapped up his content and stoked outrage, leading to even more views. On YouTube, Alex Jones’ channel was so heavily recommended that watching regular political content often led to an autoplay of his red-faced rants. But that wasn’t the end of it. A network of hateful or conspiratorial content suppliers provide these platforms with enormous amounts of “engaging” content to attract users. Their recommendation and sorting algorithms, designed to maximize engagement and the amount of time onsite, spread them farther.

Zeynep Tufeki is a tremendous scholar who I love reading. But she's not good at responding to Twitter trolls the way AOC is. Basically everyone who's not as good at this as AOC should absolutely do what Tufeki is doing. But AOC makes them look stupid so they resort to making up flat out lies or overemphasizing small slip-ups like the branches of government thing. AOC has them playing defense.

Jayhawker wrote:

She should have let pundits take him down while taking the high road.

Media consumption is not a replacement for politics.

Progress!

Kansas Lawmakers Defect to Democrats as G.O.P. Struggles in Suburbs

Ms. Sykes is one of four state lawmakers in Kansas who switched allegiances last month, walking away from the Republican Party that has controlled this state’s Capitol and dominated its politics for years. The defections won’t affect control of the Legislature — Republicans have plenty of votes to spare in Topeka — but they reveal a larger problem for the party as 2020 approaches, and one that reaches well beyond Kansas.

The departures reflect a political shift in suburban areas of Kansas, a state that surprised political experts by electing a Democrat as governor in November. That shift is part of a larger realignment in traditionally Republican suburbs across the country, where long-marginalized Democrats are now ascendant and where voters who are upset with President Trump, especially women, have punished some moderate Republican candidates.

All four of the lawmakers who announced in December that they were becoming Democrats are women, and all four are from Johnson County, just outside Kansas City, Mo. They each said that distaste for Mr. Trump and unease with Kansas’ increasingly conservative Republican Party contributed to the decision to leave.

Words, but not deeds: the Democrats as climate-deniers

Sure, House speaker Nancy Pelosi will refer to climate change as “the existential threat of our time.” But even once activists pushed her to put it on the post-midterm agenda, Pelosi declined to establish a select committee with the kind of broad powers activists want, such as the authority to issue subpoenas (something the previous House select climate committee could do, when the crisis was less urgent) or even, flabbergastingly, to draft legislation.