MLK was right: a riot is the language of the unheard

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. (not to be confused with Dr. Jill Biden, M.D.), at 1:51 in this 1966 interview:

A riot is the language of the unheard.

Is it fair to say that Amazon, Apple, Google, and Facebook have moved this statement from “possibly true” to “definitely true”? There were some rioters and now they (and some additional millions of people who also failed to support Presidents Biden and Harris) will be “unheard” for the next few decades.

From the service that unpersoned Donald J. Trump:

Leading to a question:

Twitter was comfortable with potentially inflammatory speech, apparently, in 2017:

Can Donald Trump and his supporters don the mantle of victimhood or survivorship? Signs of abuse:

Should we look at some these these, e.g.,

  • Control what you read, watch and say
  • Punish you for breaking the rules, but the rules keep changing!
  • Tell you it is for your own good and that they know better
  • Call you names or shame you for being stupid or selfish
  • Dismiss your opinions

Related:

37 thoughts on “MLK was right: a riot is the language of the unheard

  1. I do remember, some time ago, that a young and lithe Phil used to advocate that enterprising people could do all sort of things with the intewebz, using some initiative and cheap computers. Now many millions despicable seem unable to

    — find anyone, even paid, to build them a website or some app
    — find some cheap servers to host the app or website
    — set up hardware and software for hosting
    — find an ISP that does business contracts

    and get themselves running. How hard can it be? yes, granted, it is hard work (especially after the contemptibles have banned net neutrality!) but it’s not that they need to invent anything new. So they are lazy and whiny, like a bunch of obnoxious children.

    Man up abominables. Quit whining. It’s unbecoming.

    • Federico: I do think Deplorables could set up some web sites in free speech countries such as Iceland, Sweden, etc. But those sites would be invisible to most Americans. For the typical American, “Internet” is what can be experienced from within an Android or iOS mobile phone app connected to a closed server of some sort. One version of “Internet” is thus Facebook and another version of “Internet” is Twitter. Now that the audience has moved to these closed environments, it is extremely rare for a web site to reach a significant number of visitors.

    • Phil, there’s no fixing ‘stupid’ or ‘feckless’. That is still no infringement of anybody’s rights though.

    • Parler tried that. The leftwing monopolists shut it down.

      I know it was not a serious suggestion on your part, but I point out the obvious problem (that is, one of the many obvious problems) in case anyone else stumbles on your idea and thinks it original or practical in any way.

    • > Man up abominables. Quit whining. It’s unbecoming.

      Suppose the political parties were reversed. Would you say the same thing?

      For example, in 2017 a Sanders supporter shot several members of congress ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Congressional_baseball_shooting ). Suppose that the media decided that far left activists shooting republicans was a bad thing.

      If any web site which failed to kick off Democrats or suspected Democrats had to stop using all modern computing and payment platforms, and build their own data center from scratch with 24 hours notice, would you tell them to “Quit whining”?

      I am fairly certain there would be significant whining.

    • @philg

      This reminds me of 25 years ago when people thought “internet” and “AOL” were synonyms.

    • @Corindal, as a man of the right I’d love to tell the liberals they have to man/woman/zir/whatever up, but they are way too whiny for that in my experience. Nothing freaks them out more than treating them as competent adult (hei, people of the left, prove me wrong!).

      Bernie, one of the few respectable voices on the left, did not advocate shooting anyone that I remember. You cannot fix stupid and you cannot hold people accountable for a third party stupid, unless you can show causality. Keep in mind, I found the events of Jan 6th just fun and entertainment, and the US hysteria about them is because US citizens are, by and large, big babies.

      @onetwothree you are kidding, right? show evidence.

    • @ Federico said:

      > Bernie, one of the few respectable voices on the left, did not advocate shooting anyone that I remember.

      That is true. However, he did make it clear that lack of free health care was killing people. An unhinged person decided to use this as an excuse for murder. I see that as a reasonable analogy to recent events. Trump didn’t tell anyone to murder.

      > You cannot fix stupid and you cannot hold people accountable for a third party stupid, unless you can show causality.

      Again, I agree. Why does the press understand this when the speaker has a “D” next to their name on a ballot, and forget it when the ballot has an “R”?

    • @Co, Donnie told a mob to march on Capitol Hill to intimidate the VP and Republican legislators due to his manchild idea that he should have won the elections and said elections were being stolen despite 0 evidence of that. And you know, the mob just did what Donnie boy told them to do — we can argue they did more than Donnie kiddo asked for, but hey, play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

      As a man of the right, I would set a band of huns of these MAGA/QAnon morons. They are a disgrace, the sanctification of demented stupidity over facts.

    • @ Federico: We agree that what Trump said was bad.

      You use several loaded terms to express your contempt for him: “mob”, “manchild”, “0 evidence (of fraud)” etc.

      I will ask the same question that I initially posed: If a Democrat said dumb things that led nutters to violence, would you hold the speaker to the same standard?

    • @Corindal I use loaded terms to describe people all day long, normally more vitriolic though. If my language offends, tough. The statement that there is “0 evidence (of fraud)” is as factually true as the statement the US of A is a sovereign nation.

      I hold all imbeciles to the same standard (sadly I am not allowed to dispose of them). I am happy say on the record that the Dem idiots were the first with this ‘stolen elections’ bullshit claiming the Donnie idiot had been elected fraudulently BUT that ended up in a the tedious and pointless Mueller report, not imbeciles in animal skins storming Capitol Hill killing a cop.

    • @Federico said:
      > If my language offends, tough.

      I am not offended by language. I am offended by double standards.

      > I hold all imbeciles to the same standard

      Glad to hear that.

      > The statement that there is “0 evidence (of fraud)” is as factually true as the statement the US of A is a sovereign nation.

      There is more than one reason we could have no evidence of fraud:

      1) Lots of people looked carefully, and found no evidence.

      2) No one looked for evidence. Anyone who proposed looking was shouted down, because there was a non-zero risk the outcome would not be to the shouter’s liking.

      > I am happy say on the record that the Dem idiots were the first with this ‘stolen elections’ bullshit claiming the Donnie idiot had been elected fraudulently

      The democrats have been saying this election would be fixed in favor of Trump for eight months. They changed the party line rather suddenly when it was to their advantage. That they pay no price for being hypocrites on this is not a good thing.

    • @Corindal clearly, obviously it is (1), lots of people looked carefully and found no evidence of malfeasance. Let’s keep the comments 100% snowflake free.

    • Quite opposite, no court picked up a challenge to look carefully. Hope that state legislators will pick up peaces post factum, but I would not bat on it. There are plenty of affidavits presented but court declined to do their duty and look into them.

  2. As my big-city lawyer friend opined on Facebook last Wednesday, they’re “treasonous fascists” who deserve nothing but arrest and prosecution. There is no discourse that can tolerate them in civilized society.

    “Every single one of these people should be arrested and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Especially the would be fascist dictator who currently occupies the Oval Office. All of these people are treasonous fascists who are attempting to interfere with the democracy of our country. This is beyond disgraceful and disgusting.”

    If they’re truly “treasonous fascists” as my friend judged, they should be executed! They’re lucky nobody has rounded them up and shot them yet.

    Signature Bank is closing Trump’s personal accounts containing about $5 million and urged him to resign. So along with Deutsche Bank, they are going to pauperize him to the greatest extent possible. How’s that? When your banks say: “Take you money, go away and never come back, and quit your job.”

  3. And the DoJ has announced that it is bringing sedition and conspiracy charges against the rioters. If they’re bringing the charges, they must think they have enough evidence to prosecute.

    “Significant felony cases tied to sedition and conspiracy.” – U.S. Attorney Michael Sherwin, 1/12/2021. Watch the whole thing. The Strike Force is going to Strike.

    https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2021/01/12/fbi-briefing-capitol-riot-sedition-charges-vpx.cnn

    So it’s very difficult for me to imagine that anyone is going to want to host a website – even a simple one devoted to criminal defense – for anyone who can be associated with these “treasonous fascists” and “seditious conspirators.”

    • They need not have that much evidence, since they have time, and unlimited money — they will force people to take a plea for something smaller rather than fight forever against the unlimited resources of the DoJ.

    • One can buy the metal and do own hosting — all that is required is a connection to the interwebz supplied by one ISP (that can reach somehow you metal). Oh, and as Phil was mentioning, a public of non morons able to look stuff up without Facebook or Twitter

    • @Federico: > they will force people to take a plea for something smaller rather than fight forever against the unlimited resources of the DoJ.

      Yup. That is one of the legal strategies being considered. The basic idea was outlined in a Washington Post article yesterday (co-written by a UC Berkeley Law alum) yesterday. It focuses on encouraging some of those charged to defend themselves with the “Trump Said I Could Do It” defense, to establish a chain of culpability directly to the President and others, including many Republican Attorney Generals, so that they can be prosecuted for inciting the riot.

      Plea Bargain part:

      “The public authority defense doesn’t necessarily mean the rioters are off the hook: They can still be arrested, charged and brought to trial. But depending on the circumstances, a defense like this one can mitigate or even eliminate their culpability or lessen their punishment.”

      https://www.chron.com/opinion/article/Trump-said-I-could-One-possible-legal-defense-15860797.php

      Maura Healey (MA AG) is leading the campaign against the Republican AGs:
      https://www.lmtonline.com/news/article/Republican-AGs-group-sent-robocalls-urging-15860798.php

      It’s beyond the scope of this discussion to debate the legal merits of these efforts, but they’re definitely developing.

    • The process is the punishment. Average cost to successfully defend against a federal charge is over $1,000,000. What do the DOJ lawyers care whether they have evidence or not?

  4. USA as beacon of liberty was good while it lasted. I would give it historic 75/100 curved on comparative basis in a class where most fail and 100 is reserved for members only. Oh well. AI will take over some day anyway.

    • @G. Ranma: Patrisse Cullors is one of the co-founders of Black Lives Matter. She stated very proudly and forthrightly in an interview that BLM were “Trained Marxists.”

      BLM had its riots all throughout the spring and summer, led in part by self-avowed Trained Marxists. But they’re not called riots – they’re George Floyd Protests on Wikipedia. They’re a legitimate and even cherished and idealized moment in the history of Social Justice. Nobody in the media called them “Marxist Insurrectionists” or anything similar, despite the self-avowal.

      Charlamagne Tha God was interviewed for Christine Amanpour and is on PBS!

      https://www.pbs.org/wnet/amanpour-and-company/video/charlamagne-tha-god-on-joe-biden-and-black-voters/

  5. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2021/01/jared-mauch-didnt-have-good-broadband-so-he-built-his-own-fiber-isp/

    How hard can it be? and, Phil, Revered King was right, rioting is the language of those who do not have a senate majority and a sitting president and vice president. If the sorry moron maga/qanon crowd think they are being unheard, they are whiny, pathetic, unmanly, imbecilic snowflakes. They had their chance and their hateful stupidity gave the most pathetic dem team a win. They should hang their heads in shame not keep on with their childish fantasies.

  6. The comments seem to have strayed fairly far afield from what I thought was a fun semantic point: folks rioted and now they are “unheard” 🙂

    But these are making me think about why the occupation of the Capitol is considered to be far outside the norms of political protest and must therefore be considered “insurrection” or a “coup”. The loss of life was regrettable, of course, but plenty of previous political protests have involved loss of life and violence. What about the occupation of a building that is the seat of power? That is absolutely standard for protests at universities. The students will occupy a building or have a “sit-in” in the president’s office (examples: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/dec/08/georgetown-nike-student-protests-president-office ; https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2015/11/18/princeton-protesters-occupy-presidents-office-demand-racist-woodrow-wilsons-name-be-removed/ )

    We know that this was “insurrection” and “a coup”, but why weren’t those previous occupations “insurrections” or obvious attempts to take over the institution for which the building/office was the seat of power? Why were the previous occupations merely examples of “protests”?

    • > why weren’t those previous occupations insurrections or obvious attempts to take over the institution for which the building/office was the seat of power?

      They are the same thing in reality. They are not the same things in the heads of emotional people.

      If you disagree with a group of people, you call them a “mob”. If you agree with them, then they are a “mostly peaceful protest”.

      “Extremist” describes someone you disagree with. If you agree with them, they are “Passionate”.

      Someone who discriminates against a group in a way you dislike is a “racist”. Someone who discriminates against a group in a way you like is “defending a marginalized community”, “punching up”, etc.

      The past five years have been an amazing demonstration of the power that word choice has on the “thought process” of most people.

    • It was sedition because the purpose was to interfere with the proceedings of Congress under the law. I am not a lawyer but that is a distinction. If Congress had not been in session it may have been just trespass, property crimes, and murder (just murder!). The courts will have to sort it out, and in view of the recent appointments, that venue should be the best the perps can expect.

      45’s personal culpability is yet to be adjudicated, and he may only be exposed to impeachment since he operated at a remove. Congress members will have to, publicly and individually, go on record so voters get to decide on them later. Cruz and Hawley and the R house leadership may be political toast.

      Biden and the Dem party are no more attractive than HRC & Co. but it’s a binary system and the GOP has lost its way.

    • ‘What about the occupation of a building that is the seat of power? That is absolutely standard for protests at universities’ — the USA are not an university, but a sovereign nation, and Capitol Hill is not a random university building either. It is a cute and false equivalence.

    • You could certainly use those words for university protests. You could use those words to describe the overthrow of a local PTA. But you would be using them as plain words that do not refer to the actual US crimes with those titles. Those that need to “be serious” (news orgs) wouldn’t report on other protests using words that carry the serious weight of crimes, as it would read as dramatization. Meanwhile a drama or comedy absolutely might use those terms for the PTA.

      But we can nitpick further: if you occupy your University president’s office and demand they change policy, or at most be replaced with an unspecified new individual chosen *by the established authorities* then you are not wholly overthrowing that authority. Contrast the capitol riot where the goal of the rioters was to specify the specific president to be in power and give the rest of the authority no say at all.

      /s Perhaps if students wanted to replace the entire Board of Regents along with the President then it’s a coup? /s

  7. Should Trump have accepted defeat and moved on? Yes.

    Should the Democrat have impeached him and over played his wild words? No.

    Are the Democrats any better than the Republicans? Hell no.

    Like it or not, what we have here is a case of double standard (thanks to the media in large). Trump became president because the country was tired of both parties. The Democrats did not accept him which is what the Republican did for Obama, but let’s face it, the Democrats were much harder on Trump than the Replicants were on Obama, far more.

    This whole Capital Hill “mob” was a riot just like many others before it. But look at how the Democrats are playing it. They are using words such as “coup”, “were were going to die”, etc. etc. Really? This was a “coup”? And did the president really incited the whole thing? Are the words “fight”, “not give up”, etc. are now dangerous words? Do we now incite violence when we say “we must fight for what’s rightly ours” in a speech? If so, and this is just one example, what about when Nancy said “I just don’t know why there aren’t uprisings all over the country. Maybe there will be.” “There needs to be unrest in the streets.”, or when she ripped apart Trump’s speech on live TV?

    Look, Trump is done, he is leaving and history will judge him. But if you are going to use him to play scare-me tactics to score political points, just like you are doing with coronascare, you better know that there will be another Trumper in the office 4 years and 1 week from now.

    • “you better know that there will be another Trumper in the office 4 years and 1 week from now.” This is too optimistic, it would be a huge improvement over current situation. But never say never.

  8. all of the de-platforming is virtue signaling by the social media tech companies so the democrats wont rule them out of existence by killing section 230 protections.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.