Open Thread for February 2021

This is the Open Thread for February of 2021.

Please leave your tips, announcements, or others things below.


What happens when the sea shanty craze collides with the WSB mania?


Silk Road gets the Hollywood treatment, in theaters & on demand later this month…


Filmed February 21, 2020 in San Francisco…

 

 

 

15 thoughts on “Open Thread for February 2021

  1. Austin Cassidy

    “No more free speech. In America. My opinions are banned. My opinions are forbidden.”

    Seems like Root is confusing Constitutional “free speech” with the right to post opinions on a privately owned website. His opinions (or whatever nonsense he’s spewing these days) are not being forbidden or restricted by the government.

    Like a lot of controversial figures, he made the mistake of relying on a few easy services like Twitter and Facebook to carry and broadcast his message. And he made a lot of money off of those services. But he’s just now coming to realize that “his audience” wasn’t really his, it was Twitter’s audience… and Twitter has reserved the right to decide who, what, when and how things appear on their privately-owned service.

  2. dL

    “No more free speech. In America. My opinions are banned. My opinions are forbidden.”

    I’m sure his new book “Banned in America” will be available soon on Amazon
    https://www.amazon.com/Wayne-Allyn-Root/e/B001K8E4QM%3Fref=dbs_a_mng_rwt_scns_share

    But he’s just now coming to realize that “his audience” wasn’t really his, it was Twitter’s audience…

    Yes. Social Media essentially are DMP platforms to deliver audience to advertisers. Everyone, or most everyone, can self-produce their own entertainment show(content). It works much more like the old broadcast advertising medium than a public square message board. And Facebook, Twitter and Google have evolved their own set of “broadcast and decency” standards.

    Personally, I think the social media model has incentivized the marketplace of ideas to be a race to the gutter. Luckily, the internet is more than social media. Deplatforming becomes evil if it extends beyond the DMP advertising audience thing. The SESTA/FOSTA addendums to the Section 230 clause are one such example. In the old days, radical or marginal opinions/ideas never made it to the networks; but at least it had an outlet of bookstores and pamphlets. You have to be an idiot of the highest order(or want to advance government censorship) to think government “reforming” Section 230 is a good idea.

  3. Root's Teeth Were Awesome

    Former LP presidential contender Jacob Hornberger seems to disagree that the Capitol Hill incident on 1/6 was an “insurrection”: https://www.fff.org/2021/01/20/milking-the-capitol-melee-for-all-its-worth/

    leftists are milking the January 6 Capitol melee for all its worth. There is a simple reason for that: they wish to use it to introduce a new wave of domestic tyranny into America, just as Republicans did after the 9/11 attacks. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if they start referring to the melee as simply 1/6.

    That’s why they continue to describe the melee as an insurrection, revolution, rebellion, sedition, terrorism, invasion, and a grave attempt to destroy our democratic system and overthrow the government. It’s clear, according to leftists, that the intent of the “invaders” was to take control over the reins of the federal government and make Donald Trump king. I wouldn’t even be surprised if they determine that Russia was behind the “invasion.”

    Thus, don’t be surprised to see a new version of the USA PATRIOT Act. …

  4. Anastasia Beaverhausen

    Mr. Hornberger, Mike Godwin is on line three for you.

    PS: Mr. Hornberger refers to Republicans as Republicans, but seems unable to bring himself to use the term Democrats – they’re all just “leftists”.

  5. wolfefan

    Hornberger is likely (and sadly) right about the introduction of new and ever more restrictive laws and regulations. Already those of us who live or work in DC are dealing with the aftereffects of the event, and most of them aren’t likely to go away soon. At the same time, an armed effort to stop the legitimate Constitutional process for a peaceful transition of power is appropriately described as an insurrection. Whether one agrees that the Presidential election was stolen or not, the rioters believed that it was (granting them the benefit of the doubt) and were attempting to stop the steal. Their explicit, declared goal was to stop the counting of votes and delay Congress’s certification of the election by extra-Constitutional means. It was a hapless, hopeless insurrection but so was the Wat Tyler rebellion. Dorr’s Rebellion, the Kirk-Holden War and others were also insurrections, albeit at a state or local level.

  6. Ryan

    There is a middle ground to say that the attack on the Capitol was an insurrection and that it’s being used to further items that curtail civil liberties. Senators from both parties already said they were going after online speech and social media companies.

  7. Jared

    AB: “Mr. Hornberger refers to Republicans as Republicans, but seems unable to bring himself to use the term Democrats – they’re all just ‘leftists’.”

    That’s likely why Mises Caucus anarcho-paleocons could forgive his open borders policy: like them, he’s as anti-leftist as he is anti-statist. Despite his protestations to the contrary, and frenzied attempts to paint Amash as an unreconstructed GOP interloper, Hornberger strongly prefers one horn of the duopoly because, at his core, unlike Amash, he shares the Trumpublicans’ political grievances and theory of the establishment.

  8. dL

    PS: Mr. Hornberger refers to Republicans as Republicans, but seems unable to bring himself to use the term Democrats – they’re all just “leftists”.

    Democrats are not leftists. A democrat(e.g, Pelosi) may say America needs a strong republican party, but I’m pretty sure no leftist would ever say that. Also, I’m confident that if the roles had been reversed, “rightists” would be in an apoplectic fit demanding new domestic terrorism laws.

    Taking a peak at Hornberger’s essay, Hornberger once falls into his oft repeated error of romanticizing a past that never existed.

    Our American ancestors understood this. That’s why there is no crisis or emergency exception in the original Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Our ancestors understood that crises and emergencies have always been the time-honored way by which people lose their liberties, to their own government.

    No they didn’t. “State of Exception” is an endemic bug(or feature, depending, I suppose, on your point of view) to political liberalism that essentially negates any practical concept of “the rule of law.” The US constitution grants emergency powers, and intentionally omitted any language that would prevent such power to be put in effect by a simple legislative act.

    And here’s an FYI: if you really want to induce the congress critters to start passing anti-terrorism laws, just give them the impression they are ex-military, ex-government out there directing yahoos to target government buildings and government critters. That will get their attention. 9-11 was not the genesis of the original Patriot Act. It was Timothy McVeigh. They just couldn’t get that shit passed until 9-11.

  9. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    dl: I’m confident that if the roles had been reversed, “rightists” would be in an apoplectic fit demanding new domestic terrorism laws.

    The roles have been reversed. Through much of 2020, BLM/Antifa engaged in overwhelmingly violent, criminal insurrections far worse than anything that happened on January 6th. Police precincts and police cars burned. Government buildings attacked and vandalized. Innocent people intimidated, assaulted and terrorized on streets, in restaurants, and outside their homes.

  10. dL

    The roles have been reversed. Through much of 2020, BLM/Antifa engaged in overwhelmingly violent, criminal insurrections far worse than anything that happened on January 6th. Police precincts and police cars burned. Government buildings attacked and vandalized. Innocent people intimidated, assaulted and terrorized on streets, in restaurants, and outside their homes.

    And you just made my point

  11. dL

    “The US constitution grants emergency powers,” Well, no, it does not.

    Well, it does.
    Article 1, Section 9

    “The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

    Article I, Section 8, Clause 15

    [The Congress shall have Power . . .] To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions

    1n 1795, Congress passed a law that gave the executive the power to do so. That act passed constitutional muster. And that was my point: although the constitution doesn’t explicitly grant broad emergency powers to the executive, it also doesn’t explicitly deny such power by statute or decree. In practice, broad emergency powers by executive decree or statute have pretty much always passed constitutional muster, making any quibbling over whether the US constitution grants emergency powers a moot point.

  12. Root's Teeth Were Awesome

    dl: And you just made my point

    Ah, no. I didn’t.

    You said: I’m confident that if the roles had been reversed …

    I pointed out that the roles had been reversed. No “ifs” about it.

    Was that your alleged point? That you were in error?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *