> This was a deliberate strike targeting a known American citizen in a country with which the US was not at war (Yemen), for accusations of terrorism.
I never understood this argument. Al-Awlaki was embedded with a group of enemy combatants the US was at war with, and he knew he was a wanted man, and he had plenty of opportunities to surrender, but he chose not to. So either the US does some Spec Ops snatch-and-grab to get him and risk the lives of all involved personnel, or do nothing at all?
From what I can tell, Jones, who's been on the air in some capacity since the mid 90s, has only two significant "IRL" incidents directly attributable to him: the raid on Comet Ping Pong--which resulted in shots fired, but no injuries (or rescued children)--and the execrable harassment of Sandy Hook families.
Meanwhile the Young Turks had an actual mass shooter, Gavin Long, who made videos directly referencing the show, and rather than resulting in their cancellation, the entire thing was memory-holed. Even their wikipedia doesn't mention it.
Granted, from time to time you do hear about "eccentric" acts of violence (e.g., against 5G towers, or people lashing out due to "gang-stalking"), and it's not difficult to imagine Jones having some influence on them.
It's a bit of both, I think. He's clearly learned that behaving in certain ways garners him more attention (which he craves), especially back in his "bullhorn on the streets" days, and he's clearly willing to ham it up for that sake. But people who knew him as a young man back in Rockwall, and later Austin, all vouched for his lunacy. In fact, I can't recall anyone close to him ever being convinced of his sanity.
> Also, right wing actors including Kirk himself were promoting violence for years already
I'm specifically referring to the left's acceptance of violence in response to political speech, for which there is no equivalent consensus on the right, for example, that they can and should go around assaulting Marxists, Islamists, or others with whom they fundamentally disagree.
And Kirk, for whatever faults he had, and however performative were his events, sought to debate his opponents--not encourage his followers to assault them. I couldn't find anything about him "promoting violence for years."
The problem with this essay (besides DHH's hyperbolic prose, e.g., "woke orthodoxies") is that DHH, not having grown up in the US, doesn't realize that the normalization of violence in response to speech actually represents a substantial deviation from historic American norms. The ACLU was once one of the preeminent leftwing political organizations in America, and it distinguished itself through unwavering advocacy on behalf of ALL forms of offensive speech, including flag burning and extreme pornography, but also extremist politics. Progressives who thought the answer to bad speech was more speech and that sunlight was the best disinfectant were once plentiful.
DHH's misstep is that he's resorting to arguing he and others are being falsely labeled as "Nazis," but conceding, even implicitly, the assumption that it's OK to respond to speech (and only rightwing speech; "tankies" and Sharia-pushing Islamists always fit through the Overton window) with violence is already surrendering too much.
I don't think that's necessary, but it might give you some perspective. Perhaps you'll appreciate America more after spending some time away from her, and if not, "self-deportation" might ultimately prove to be of mutual benefit to the country and those most contemptuous of it.
> Here’s what I think is going to happen. The next ACIP meeting is scheduled for late October. A few days before the meeting, the agenda will be posted. MMR will be on the agenda. They will request that CDC scientists present on febrile seizures caused by MMR. The MMR has been administered to millions of kids since it came on the market in 1971, so the CDC scientists will have mountains of data to present. It won’t matter. The risk of febrile seizure is not zero, so the MMR will be recommended only for kids over aged 4, when the risk subsides.
> There is a way to reduce the risk of febrile seizure, by the way. Reducing fever prevents febrile seizures. You know how you safely reduce fever in babies? Tylenol. Which has now been designated by Trump and Kennedy’s entire HHS as the cause of autism, despite having no evidence to support that claim.
I doubt the administration is this devious or thinking as far ahead as she thinks. Her reasoning is ironically similar to Trump supporters, who rebrand every flub, fumble, and gaffe as some form of "5D chess" that normies just don't understand. But it's evident form the tariff policy that much what the administration does is just shot straight from the hip.
> Is unlimited immigration really popular among the far left?
That this is being memory-holed, much like the ill-conceived bilingual education initiatives of the 90s, is actually a good sign, as it's proof that we're winning.
My guess is these progressives are so used to eating their own and purity spiraling, that they just assume it must come as naturally to conservatives as it does to them. How they reconcile that with conservatives having clearly been able to set aside their differences to win enough elections to lock up the Supreme Court for probably of the rest of these same progressives' natural lifetimes, I don't know.
You only get one mom and dad, and estranging yourselves from them over political disagreements (common on reddit) seems fairly unhinged to me. And I was just trying to illustrate the absurdity of the
> HIS FAMILY IS MAGA
cope, which leftists latched onto immediately, even on reddit, where the counterexamples abound.
You're ascribing special significance to Russell having held a position, rather than the position's own merits, which is bizarre given how frequently Russell was known to change his mind. Had he outlived Mosley, I could easily see him having had a change of heart and regretting not having taken up Mosley on his offer.
And the dots, for me, remain unconnected. Are you suggesting Kirk represented such a radical, rightward departure from the Christian conservatism of (for example) Pat Robertson--a fixture of late 20th century American politics--that Mosley is a reasonable point of comparison?
Are you making a point about the protests in Britain, and not realizing that "refusal to engage," at least on immigration, is a major, if not the primary, reason why far right parties have risen in Europe and why Trump is in the White House again?
I never understood this argument. Al-Awlaki was embedded with a group of enemy combatants the US was at war with, and he knew he was a wanted man, and he had plenty of opportunities to surrender, but he chose not to. So either the US does some Spec Ops snatch-and-grab to get him and risk the lives of all involved personnel, or do nothing at all?