MAGA’s Big Miscalculation

from the surrounded-by-yes-men-and-idiots dept

In the shadow of Charlie Kirk’s assassination, something remarkable seems to be happening that Trump’s movement seems completely unable to see. Trapped within their own epistemic bubble, MAGA appears to have fundamentally misread the political moment, interpreting tragedy as total victory over their opponents.

The miscalculation is breathtaking in its scope. The White House seems to believe that Kirk’s murder somehow delegitimized the entire Democratic opposition—that liberals, progressives, and the broad left had all been exposed as violent extremists in the eyes of ordinary Americans. Operating from this false premise, they’ve concluded they now possess unlimited moral authority to pursue their maximum program: mass deportations, constitutional violations, systematic persecution of political opponents.

What MAGA world seems to be missing is that most Americans are capable of holding two thoughts simultaneously: political violence is unacceptable, and Trump remains a dangerous authoritarian who threatens democratic governance. The assassination didn’t change fundamental assessments of Trump’s character or his movement’s threat to democracy—it simply added another layer of chaos and violence to an already unacceptable situation.

The evidence of their miscalculation is mounting across multiple fronts. The National Corn Growers Association reports that 46% of U.S. farmers believe the country is on the brink of agricultural economic crisis, with corn margins showing losses of $161 per acre. These supposedly core MAGA supporters are discovering that deportation policies create severe labor shortages threatening entire harvests, while cash receipts for crop farms have declined by $71 billion over the past three years.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration’s new H-1B visa fees of $100,000 per year are creating consternation among tech leaders who supported him. Major companies like Amazon, Microsoft, and Meta—which had thousands of H-1B visas approved—now face crushing new costs that could significantly impact smaller tech firms and startups. Even the Pentagon’s unprecedented restrictions on journalist access, requiring reporters to sign agreements not to publish certain information, suggest an administration increasingly paranoid about public scrutiny.

Former Disney CEO Michael Eisner publicly slammed current CEO Bob Iger over Jimmy Kimmel’s suspension, asking “Where has all the leadership gone?” and criticizing the “out-of-control intimidation” following FCC Chairman Brendan Carr’s threats to Disney.

But perhaps most telling is the pushback from within the Republican Party itself. Senator Ted Cruz—hardly a liberal voice—ripped Carr’s threats as “dangerous as hell” and “right out of ‘Goodfellas,’“ comparing the FCC chairman to “a mafioso coming into a bar going, nice bar you have here, it’d be a shame if something happened to it.” Even Senator Thom Tillis called Carr’s behavior “just unacceptable.”

This misreading reveals how completely epistemic closure has captured Trump’s inner circle. Surrounded by yes-men and sycophants, consuming only media that confirms their worldview, purging dissent from their ranks—they’ve lost the capacity to accurately assess public sentiment. They’re operating from assumptions about American attitudes that may have been valid two years ago but have completely shifted.

The dramatic shift in immigration polling tells the story clearly: over 70% of Americans now view immigration positively, while Trump’s deportation policies poll in the 30s. Rural farmers, tech executives, and ordinary citizens are all discovering that authoritarian rhetoric sounds different when it becomes authoritarian reality affecting their daily lives.

This creates a dangerous dynamic. Believing they have unlimited mandate, they’re pushing policies that are actually generating the opposition they think they’ve eliminated. Every masked ICE raid, every family separation, every constitutional violation, every restriction on press access, every punitive fee on tech companies is not consolidating their power but mobilizing resistance they can’t see coming.

History is littered with movements that became so convinced of their own narrative that they lost touch with actual public sentiment. The more authoritarian they become, the more they surround themselves with true believers, making accurate assessment impossible. MAGA has achieved such perfect epistemic closure that they may genuinely believe their own propaganda about having “ended” the opposition.

The Kirk assassination seems to have been their Reichstag Fire moment—the event they thought would justify unlimited power. But unlike the Nazis, who still had to carefully manage public opinion, MAGA appears to believe the American people will simply accept whatever they impose. They’re treating democratic opposition like a switch that can be turned off rather than a river that finds new channels when blocked.

By interpreting tragedy as permission for maximum authoritarianism rather than a moment requiring restraint, they’re making exactly the kind of overreach that can trigger successful resistance movements. The very epistemic closure that helped them capture power may ensure they overplay their hand so dramatically that they enable the opposition response they never saw coming.

The most dangerous moment for our democratic may also the moment when authoritarianism makes its fatal mistake.

Mike Brock is a former tech exec who was on the leadership team at Block. Originally published at his Notes From the Circus.

Filed Under: , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “MAGA’s Big Miscalculation”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
94 Comments

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Every Republican Ever

Seventy-seven million Americans, last November, voted for, as LP put it, Fire in the sunrise/ Ashes raining down. This raises the question of just how feasible it is to control the population that they vote stupidly. The project to get them to do just that has been going on since FDR’s New Deal, and gained traction in 1980 when Reagan won by landslide.

Mind control is here, and over a trillion is put into assuring right-wing propaganda hold record viewership rates.

I know large chunks of the constituency voted against the black woman, or against the democrat, or against the communist, and others still voted for Trump based on vibes (though I can’t imagine how Trump vibes could appeal to anyone — but I’m an ASD lunatic, and have never before felt more divorced from the human species). But it’s not like Trump effectively lied. He expressed what he was going to do in his rallies, time and time and time again.

To paraphrase Professor Leah Litman, [they voted based on] conservative grievance, bad vibes and conspiracy theories the same thing that runs the majority bloc of SCOTUS.

So shoot them? Not at all. Figure out why they have the civic self-control of a rabid dog, and treat it as a mental health problem? Absolutely.

Otherwise, human society from here on out will just be Orwellian dystopias, until our betters find cause to not do them that way and treat others as human beings, and eventually as we run out of water for growing things and the global famine hits.

Considering the old testament and Hammurabi’s laws inform regarding treatment of the stranger, the fatherless, the impoverished, it suggests it has always been a problem of societies who are inclined to exclude the most deviant perverts, the most heinous violent wrongdoers, the most squalid transients, in all cases blaming it on the individuals who can’t fit in.

Creating a society that tolerates and manages absolutely everyone is going where no-one has gone before, so we’ve quite the challenge ahead of us.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
MrWilson (profile) says:

Re: Re:

You should probably shoot all those fascists, right? By which you mean literally every Republican ever.

Holy stupid strawman, batman!

People are done with you.

You ain’t people, bud. You only represent yourself. And no one cares what you think if you have to resort to dismissive strawmen to attempt to make a point.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Thad (profile) says:

Re:

Also: everybody knew what 9/11 was. Nobody fucking knows who Charlie Kirk was.

9/11 was a generational trauma that we, as a nation, all experienced together. Bush took advantage of that to ram through a fascist agenda.

Trump’s trying to do the same with Charlie Kirk, but most people have no idea who that fucking is. And, not for nothin’, Republicans have spent the last 30 years training everybody to respond to shootings by shrugging and moving on.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

  • Continuously calls everyone who disagrees with them “Nazis”
  • Says violence against “nazis” is OK.
  • Shoot a guy for being a “nazi” (i.e. having an opinion you don’t like)
  • 300k people show up for the funeral. Basically every normal person realizes this is awful and that democrats have become unhinged.
  • Compare them to nazis again in this very article.
  • Says “Why would MAGA do that? Can’t they tone down the rhetoric? They are making a huge mistake.”

You are the whole problem.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

Continuously calls everyone who disagrees with them “Nazis”

A thing no one has done.

Says violence against “nazis” is OK.

A thing no one has done.

Shoot a guy for being a “nazi” (i.e. having an opinion you don’t like)

A thing one random guy did and which most people condemned.

300k people show up for the funeral. Basically every normal person realizes this is awful and that democrats have become unhinged.

A thing that doesn’t seem to mean what you think it means.

Says “Why would MAGA do that? Can’t they tone down the rhetoric? They are making a huge mistake.”

Yes, because so much of the rhetoric going around these days is Dems saying “hey we need to stop the violence” and MAGA saying “everyone who isn’t MAGA IS INHERENTLY EVIL and must be silenced, jailed, punished, fired, etc.”

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Rocky (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Talk about lacking in reading comprehension. Lets see what Brock wrote:

But unlike the Nazis, who still had to carefully manage public opinion, MAGA appears to believe the American people will simply accept whatever they impose.

See, he says unlike the Nazis. Do you even understand the difference between making a comparison or calling someone a name?

MAGA’s keep descending into stupidity, is there even a bottom anymore?

BernardoVerda (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 These are Cipolla's five fundamental laws of stupidity:

These are Cipolla’s five fundamental laws of stupidity:

  1. Always and inevitably, everyone underestimates the number of stupid individuals in circulation.
  2. The probability that a certain person (will) be stupid is independent of any other characteristic of that person.
  3. A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses.
  4. Non-stupid people always underestimate the damaging power of stupid individuals. In particular, non-stupid people constantly forget that at all times and places, and under any circumstances, to deal and/or associate with stupid people always turns out to be a costly mistake.
  5. A stupid person is the most dangerous type of person.

Corollary: a stupid person is more dangerous than a pillager.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re:

Continuously calls everyone who disagrees with them “Nazis”

You say that like Republicans⁠—including Trump⁠—haven’t done that. Which they have. Repeatedly.

Says violence against “nazis” is OK.

Few people here have advocated for that, and I refuse to endorse it in terms of “hey, go randomly punch someone you think is a Nazi”.

Shoot a guy for being a “nazi” (i.e. having an opinion you don’t like)

The political beliefs/alignment of the shooter is still largely up for debate. That said: Nobody here, unless they’re trying to be a provocateur, has condoned the murder of Charlie Kirk.

300k people show up for the funeral. Basically every normal person realizes this is awful and that democrats have become unhinged.

It was less a funeral and more a megachurch show laced with pro wrestling theatrics⁠—i.e., a Donald Trump political rally.

Compare them to nazis again in this very article.

People who don’t want to be compared to Nazis shouldn’t act in a way that invites those comparisons.

Says “Why would MAGA do that? Can’t they tone down the rhetoric? They are making a huge mistake.”

Right-wingers keep calling on “the left” to turn down the heat even as Donald Trump effectively fans the flames. For what reason do conservatives never have to soften their rhetoric or try to lower the political temperature?

You are the whole problem.

Credible statistics say most domestic terrorism is right-wing in nature. Even the dipshit who tried to kill Trump was a right-winger.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

You say that like Republicans⁠—including Trump⁠—haven’t done that. Which they have.

Don’t say these things are comparable, cuz they’re not.

More critically, we don’t do that and simultaneously say violence against “nazis” is OK.

The political beliefs/alignment of the shooter is still largely up for debate.

It is not, actually.

Credible statistics say most domestic terrorism is right-wing in nature.

No, nothing “credible” says that, actually. I saw a “study” that did things like claim all anti-semitism was right-wing, even tho the vast majority of it comes from the left these days. Black on Jew violence (very common), for instance.

Even the dipshit who tried to kill Trump was a right-winger.

There’s no evidence of that at all, actually. Unlike Charlie Kirk’s murderer, he messaged no one, left no manifesto, no messages. No, registering republican doesn’t mean anything.

In short: This is just more lying and gaslighting. Basically NONE of what you’re saying is true.

The democrat party is the part of murder.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Don’t say these things are comparable, cuz they’re not.

You’re right, they’re not⁠—because Democrats haven’t been trying to turn the country into a religious autocracy through fascist actions.

we don’t do that and simultaneously say violence against “nazis” is OK

Conservatives do use a lot of violence-coded language when talking about Democrats/“the left”, though. Donald Trump even declared “war” against Democrat-led Chicago.

It is not, actually.

I haven’t seen anything that definitively ties Some Asshole to a specific political ideology, so yes, his political leanings still read as vague.

nothing “credible” says that, actually

Then by all means, show me a study from a credible non-partisan organization that proves left-wing political violence happens at greater levels in the United States than does right-wing political violence. I’ll wait.

I saw a “study” that did things like claim all anti-semitism was right-wing, even tho the vast majority of it comes from the left these days.

Criticism of the Israeli government isn’t antisemitic. And most antisemitism in the U.S. does come from the right, considering how a good chunk of conservatives are Christians who believe in the “we have to get the Jews back to Israel so we can kill them and bring back Jesus” Rapture mythology.

There’s no evidence of that at all, actually.

Other than the fact that he was a registered Republican who espoused antisemitic and anti-immigrant rhetoric on social media, anyway.

This is just more lying and gaslighting. Basically NONE of what you’re saying is true.

Then provide the evidence that it’s not true. Saying “it ain’t true” doesn’t get the job done.

The democrat party is the part of murder.

You say that like Republicans don’t support the murder of schoolchildren by refusing to take action on gun control. Every mass casualty shooting that happens in this country is a feature, not a bug, of Republican gun policy. Shit, man, even Charlie Kirk getting shot in the neck didn’t change their fucking minds, and they venerated him more than they grieved for the kids killed at Sandy Hook and Uvalde.

BernardoVerda (profile) says:

Re:

Continuously calls everyone who disagrees with them “Nazis”

Nah. We just call the fascists, neo-Nazis, and flagrant self-identified Nazis, Nazis.

It might not be 100% technically correct in all cases, as I suppose that technically, a ‘fascist’ might not necessarily be literally a ‘nazi’, seig heil-ing and wearing swastika armbands — but it’s more than close enough for most non-academic, political discourse.)

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Side note: Anyone else notice how the Charlie Kirk “memorial” was less an event for grieving a loss and more a weird combination of a megachurch sermon, a political rally, and a WWE event? I swear, Kirk’s widow could’ve come out to Cody Rhodes’s entrance theme and it wouldn’t have felt out of place there, given that she walked out to pyro and all.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3

How dare they grieve in a way that you, who supported the man’s murder, doesn’t approve of, amirght?

Yeah, buddy, I know you hate conservatives and every way they do everything. That’s not news.

But seriously, you WISH it was “performative”.

Like you will wish it was. We’re not just sad, we’re angry, and you people keep on insisting on making it worse.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4

How dare they grieve in a way that you, who supported the man’s murder, doesn’t approve of, amirght?

Two things.

  1. A “memorial service” that comes off as a megachurch sermon mixed with a political rally and a WWE show doesn’t look much like grieving to me, but hey, I guess some people might mourn the dead that way.
  2. I don’t, didn’t, and won’t ever support or condone his murder.

I know you hate conservatives and every way they do everything.

What I hate about conservatives is their general lack of empathy. They see trans people existing in a world that is openly hostile towards them and think “wow, I should make their lives even worse because I have the power to do that”. They see kids gunned down in elementary schools and think “wow, I shouldn’t do anything to prevent this from happening again despite having the power to do that”. The ethos of the right wing is “I shouldn’t have to care about people who are different than me”, and they prove it every day with their policies and their decision to help rich people get richer. I don’t know how to tell you that you should care about other people; the same goes for every other American conservative.

We’re not just sad, we’re angry, and you people keep on insisting on making it worse.

Therein lies the problem: You bottle up this anger and you hold it in and you let it fester for days, weeks, months, even years⁠—and when it finally becomes too much to bear, well, someone gets hurt. Maybe it’s someone you love. Maybe it’s someone you hate. Maybe it’s just someone in the wrong place at the wrong time. But someone inevitably gets hurt, and the grand irony is that the pain you cause won’t soothe your own. You’ll keep getting angrier and angrier until it boils over again and you hurt someone even worse, and the cycle will continue until you learn the truth: Anger is an emotion that you have to focus into doing good or it will consume you in a way that makes you do evil.

People who are upset about the Trump administration have turned their anger into action⁠—including protests, boycotts, and lawsuits⁠—that are, in part, designed to protect marginalized people targeted by the administration. Conservatives who are mad about people protesting and criticizing the Trump administration keep threatening and harming marginalized people to “own the libs”. Which one do you think is a better use of anger?

Every decision you make in anger will come back to haunt you. Every act you commit while you’re angry is a mistake you will eventually regret. Stay mad at your own peril.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
MrWilson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4

I know you hate conservatives and every way they do everything.

It’s clear you’re convinced you know what you’re talking about. That you’re arguing with strawmen and assuming everyone you disagree with holds exactly the same views just reveals your accusation-confession and says nothing about the people you don’t know anything useful about.

We’re not just sad, we’re angry, and you people keep on insisting on making it worse.

This is the language of an abuser looking to justify their abuse. “You made me do it by [insert imagined slight here].” If you think words on a website are compelling you to get angrier and move you closer towards violence, you need to seek professional help.

You’re not standing on moral high ground. You’re just flying giant red flags that you’re unhinged.

n00bdragon (profile) says:

Re:

If I could bring back one person from the dead it would be Charlie Kirk, just so I could force him to watch that dumpster fire. I’m not sure if he’d openly repudiate it, he sold his soul a long time ago after all, but deep inside I think he’d find it stomach churning. I think his inner private person would be horrified at what he helped wreak.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

David says:

You wish...

What MAGA world seems to be missing is that most Americans are capable of holding two thoughts simultaneously:

We are not talking about two thoughts. How to evaluate facts is predigested by the news source you consult (of which Techdirt is one) and those sit in the context of a whole world view, not a single thought.

Interpreting something like Kirk’s murder in a manner incompatible with the government toeline is not something large newspapers (publicly owned ones in particular) wanting to stay in business do.

For better or worse, people visiting Techdirt (like other news sites) do not come here for new insights but to have their current views reinforced. Working with conflicting interpretations is too much of a headache.

So the situation of holding two different thoughts that are components of different worldviews in different news universes does not even arise. Not to any significant degree.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

MrWilson (profile) says:

Re:

For better or worse, people

Which people? All people? That’s pretty broad a claim…

visiting Techdirt (like other news sites)

Mike has specifically said this isn’t a news site. It’s a blog.

do not come here for new insights but to have their current views reinforced.

Are you speaking for yourself? How would you know this about every other person who has visited the site?

Working with conflicting interpretations is too much of a headache.

Maybe for people who weren’t taught critical analysis.

MrWilson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

I was reading Fox News last night. I don’t shy away from reading their bullshit. It’s good to see the source of the propaganda that people are spewing. Do you think people don’t do that? I think this perspective that everyone else lives in an echo chamber is just an admission that the speaker lives in an echo chamber and believes everyone is like them, but doesn’t venture out of it to discover the fact that not everyone is in fact like them.

Did you enjoy it?

In the sense that I laugh at the bullshit and research claims to find out how absurd they are, yes, it can be very entertaining.

Or do you keep out of the world views you don’t like, too?

I’m the guy who back in college didn’t write my thesis statement for my essay before I gathered the evidence. I crafted the thesis based on what the evidence showed.

Anonymous Coward says:

Major companies like Amazon, Microsoft, and Meta—which had thousands of H-1B visas approved—now face crushing new costs

“Crushing”? Those companies pay their top people many times that every year. They’re certainly not going to be crushed by a one-time $100,000 payment. And the visas are supposed to be for workers whose knowledge is so specialized that U.S. workers can’t fill the job—which suggests they should be highly paid.

Those three companies all have net incomes of 60 billion dollars per year. Let’s say “thousands” means three thousand; in that case, the fees would be 0.5% of their income. It’s not nothing, but if you think about it as a corporate tax increase, it’s a really tiny one. Lots of countries have rates 5 to 10 percentage points higher. If Trump suggested changing the rate from 21% to 22%, or California legislators similarly raised state taxes by one point, would you be talking about big companies being “crushed”? (Although, sure, they might not be so eager to support those who raised their taxes. But that brings us to, in my opinion, the bigger problem: the Secretary of Homeland Security can waive the visa fee pretty arbitrarily. Those who pay proper tribute to the King may not be affected anyway.)

As for smaller companies, they’ll feel it, but I’m unsure whether it’s a problem. Because, again, it’s supposed to be for highly specialized work, and $100,000 doesn’t seem outrageous for that sort of work. People often say that, in reality, these visas are used to hire foreign labor to replace Americans, at lower rates. A big fee could prevent that.

JustWandering says:

Re:

How sure are you that it will result in more US residence being employed? Alternatively, it lowers the value yet again of an H1B employee, maybe the salary they offer H1Bs decreases more. I don’t know all the rules, but I would assume any change that Trump makes will not ever hurt Amazon’s bottom line even a tiny bit, but will only hurt the immigrants trying to make their way in the country or the working class.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

How sure are you that it will result in more US residence being employed?

Not sure at all. Trump’s probably doing this for all the wrong reasons; it might just be a distraction or scapegoat in relation to the various economy-destroying policies being passed. (America is being removed from the world’s supply chains, as much as possible, due mostly to tariffs.) It’d certainly be a convenient explanation if there were a huge drop in immigration applications. It’s not that nobody wants to come here anymore, it’s that we’ve stopped abuse, right?

I imagine there’s also some intent to use this to get the big companies to “play ball”, to get exemptions, with the pretense of (Trump caring about) visa abuse being a way to get it through the courts.

Yeah, salaries could certainly decrease. A one-time $100,000 fee might be worth it for cheap-enough workers—who, by the way, basically can’t quit, because they’d be deported.

will only hurt the immigrants trying to make their way in the country or the working class.

H1-B is technically a “non-immigrant visa”, although many holders do eventually immigrate. By most U.S. definitions it would not apply to the “working class”, as the requirement for “highly specialized knowledge” makes it more of a “middle class” thing.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Doesn’t $100k look more like a ransom, that once paid, the person is send back to its family?

I don’t see how. Under that theory, I’d expect the government to approve as many visas as possible, cheaply, and “crack down” and apply “fines” later. You know, ’cause the person was in a criminal gang or something, like Kilmar. Even better if the feds can find some minor rule that actually was violated.

But here’s some text from Wikipedia:

The $100,000 payment is not required if the U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security decides that the hiring a particular H-1B visa holder, all H-1B visa holders working at a company, or all such H-1B visa holders working in a particular industry is in the national interest of the U.S. and is not a threat to the U.S.

That sounds like a way for Trump to command obedience from the companies. Those who disobey will suddenly be “a threat”, while the allies will be industries of “national interest”. More a shakedown than a ransom.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
MacCruiskeen says:

You’re assuming that they care about whether or not their policies actually have popular support. They do not! They will do whatever they can get away with, take as much power as they can, because the opposition is limited in how much it can resist. It doesn’t matter that people don’t like what Carr is doing because the decisions are being made by the oligarchic toadies who own the networks. Sure, even a dictator or autocrat needs to have a base of support, but it doesn’t have to be a majority.

BernardoVerda (profile) says:

Re:

More like the “Moral Majority Inquisition”, actually.

I suppose that rather dates me. Perhaps that should be the Focus On Family Inquisition..? No… the Heritage Foundation Inquisition…? Nope. The Southern Baptist Inquisition..? The MAGA Inquisition..?

No, no, no… Of course! Now I’ve got it!
It will be recorded in history as “The Libs Of Tik Tok Inquisition.”

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Quiet violence.

I’ve noticed a handful of content creators have suggested that the notion that political violence is unacceptable is only confined to those who have been privileged always to have alternative options available to them, and some demographics have not had this.

Or as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said Riots are the language of the unheard.

Right now, we’re staring down the inevitable dissolution of US democracy at the hands of the Federalist Society faction of SCOTUS, and no legitimate power is going to stop them.

But eventually, the public will cease to recognize the court system as an alternative to settling disputes and conflicts with violence. And we may stop from shooting at each other to gun down the judges who allowed the US legal system to be repurposed into a political weapon.

We’re in interesting times, and violence is back on the table, I suspect in the same forms as quiet quitting, quiet succession and quiet mutiny.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
This comment has been deemed funny by the community.
MrWilson (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Of course, as historians are fond of pointing out, the Civil Rights Acts were passed based entirely upon black people writing sternly worded letters to white folks asking them to stop using dogs and fire hoses on them and to let them sit at the diner and the front of the bus and maybe even let them vote without interference or intimidation.

There have been countless movies made about the famous surrender of the Nazis when Hitler held a rally and read out the passionate letter from a young Jewish girl who begged him to stop murdering her family and people. And Hitler wept and apologized and resigned immediately.

The back of the dollar bill depicts the signing of the Declaration of Petition to beg George III to let the colonies out of their tax bill which led to independence as soon as the letter got to London and the reply came back: “Quite! George Rex, XOXO.”

It’s not like Trump fails to read ever letter written to him. His mail definitely isn’t filtered by staff. And nobody in D.C. has a large industrial shredder.

Anonymous Coward says:

the entire Democratic opposition—that liberals, progressives, and the broad left

i would just like to point out, perhaps pointlessly, that this is still the language of the extreme right. There are plenty of center, even traditionally more conservative Democrats. Or independents. They may be to the left of the extreme right, but hardly “the left”. Too many have adopted this language. It’s not great, particularly when the trouble is taken to list out groups such as was done here. i don’t think we should accept, internalize, or perpetuate this exonym. Y’know, be inclusive instead. Annoy the right. Let those who don’t identify as particularly liberal, progressive, or left know they aren’t ignored or misidentified by both the right and the non-right.

Anonymous Coward says:

I am still waiting for the republican supporting citizens to finally voice out loud that they realize they voted in an authoritarian dick into office and that the legislature is just doing his bidding instead of supporting the workers of America.

Until they realize that, it’s just a matter of time till the trump admin gets away with more authoritarian bullcrap.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: 'My life is terrible under a fully republican government... must be the dems' fault!'

I’ve seen a good number of videos where even when they outright admit that things are going horribly for them they still refuse to admit to just why that may be since that would require admitting both that they screwed up and that their Dear Leader is a major factor in why things are going so badly for them.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Every Accusation a Confession: Violence edition

The White House seems to believe that Kirk’s murder somehow delegitimized the entire Democratic opposition—that liberals, progressives, and the broad left had all been exposed as violent extremists in the eyes of ordinary Americans.

Despite the fact that yet again it turns out the shooter wasn’t a democrat, and even if he was he would very much be the exception to the streak of violence rather than the norm, but hey, since when did facts and reality matter to the post-reality cult/regime that is MAGA?

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
TKnarr (profile) says:

I think their biggest miscalculation was believing they had a large majority who’d support them despite all election results to the contrary. Now everybody’s being forced to sit up and pay attention to them, and that’s never going to go well when you’re only 15% of the voting population.

Their only hope is that the Democrats make the same mistake and try to keep pushing “centrist” (read “moderate Republican”) candidates despite all the indications pointing to the voters wanting positions to the left of center.

Anonymous Coward says:

“In the shadow of Charlie Kirk’s assassination”

Stop right there: Charlie Kirk wasn’t assassinated. He was executed.

That may seem like a nitpick, but it’s not. JFK, MLK, etc. were assassinated, and it’s proper to use that verb to refer to their deaths because they were revered people in society — revered because they earned it with their words and actions.

Charlie Kirk was a Nazi punk: no more, no less. It is no more proper to call his death an “assassination” than it is to refer to crushing a cockroach as an “assassination”.

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Assassinations vs. Executions vs. Basic Murder.

I always thought it is an assassination if the target is based on importance (such as an official of state) or celebrity (such as a popular artist). John Lennon was assassinated in that he was targeted on account of being famous.

If someone killed John Lennon because Lennon owed them $10K and Lennon refused to pay (and courts weren’t an option) then it’d just be a private affair in which Lennon’s fame was incidental, and it’d be plain old murder.

But Kirk was a target because he was a political figure and a celebrity, and that sounds like assassination to me.

Of course, some legal systems may have their own definitions of assassination and statutes that differentiate it from plain intentional homicide. But then that can be different from how a term is used commonly by the public.

As for executions, those are done by the state, and are supposed to be made legal according to the state. When CIA sends a field agent to kill someone, that’s assassination, again. But when the state puts someone in front of a firing squad, or the disposition matrix decides that someone must die, that’s execution. An independent individual can’t execute, except as an agent of state assigned to perform the specific execution. The rather elaborate procession that comes with an execution is supposed to emphasize that this is an action of the state, and the state holds responsibility for the death.

Curiously when someone is killed by hellfire missile and burns the whole village down, the POI was executed for having received (limited, secret) due process. But everyone else massacred in the strike was just plain murdered by the state, and written off as casualties of war. It gets kinda gross.

Add Your Comment

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

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get all our posts in your inbox with the Techdirt Daily Newsletter!

We don’t spam. Read our privacy policy for more info.

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...