Don't blame me, I voted for the other guy. (Politics General)

KharnZeBetrayer

@Meanlucario
Not sure the context in which “overeducated” is being used here but if it’s from a social view it implies the individual has a lot of academic training but zero experience with the real world but thinks they have the answers.
As you implied: young people think they see how things are and know how to fix them instead of the old stagnant generation.
This is not a new thing this is as old as Human history.
The young are rebellious and the old complacent.
The issue I believe in this context is the “overeducated” youth being informed by radical philosophy that has never succeeded under real conditions and using that knowledge as a call to burn it all down and build their utopia.
It never actually works out that way and more often than not results in atrocities because the core idea is never allowed to be incorrect, it’s the people involved that are the problem so those people have to be “dealt with”. It’s a problem of the intelligencia operating on theory and ignoring experimental results because they think they know better.
Dustcan
Non-Fungible Trixie -
Preenhub - We all know what you were up to this evening~
Twinkling Balloon - Took part in the 2021 community collab.
Friendship, Art, and Magic (2020) - Took part in the 2020 Community Collab
Wallet After Summer Sale -
Condensed Milk - State-Approved Compensation

Conservatives have been having a ‘War on Education’ for decades, not coincidentally because trends show the higher educated tends to vote Not Republican.
Throw in some culture war nonsense, stereotypes about “Ivory Towers” etc and you get this hatred towards intelligence. This sentiment - of course - kicked into overdrive during the Trump years when suddenly Republicans needed a reason to justify why its okay their Dear Leader couldn’t speak complete sentences.
Also in PizzaGaetz’s case, “overeducated” translates to “too old”.
Meanlucario
Princess of Love - Extra special version for those who participated in the Canterlot Wedding 10th anniversary event by contributing art.
Elements of Harmony - Had an OC in the 2022 Community Collab
Non-Fungible Trixie -
Kinship Through Differences - Celebrated the 11th anniversary of MLP:FIM!
Verified Pegasus - Show us your gorgeous wings!
Preenhub - We all know what you were up to this evening~
Twinkling Balloon - Took part in the 2021 community collab.
Ten years of changes - Celebrated the 10th anniversary of MLP:FiM!
Happy Derpy! - For site supporters
My Little Pony - 1992 Edition

Is that a 5*?
@Dustcan
Funny how the political side that’s suppose to support an all-knowing God rejects knowledge. The more I learn about the conservative side, the more disappointed I am with them.
Background Human
Preenhub - We all know what you were up to this evening~
My Little Pony - 1992 Edition
Not a Llama - Happy April Fools Day!

CHS, Class of 20XX
@Calbeck
It’s kinda hard to secede without disrupting the business of the government you’re seceding from. I don’t think the colonies went up to the Brits like, “yeah, we’re declaring ourselves free and independent states, but if you guys wanna stick around and collect taxes and shit, that’s cool”.
18 USC Chapter 115 goes into a lot more detail on specific crimes. Section 2383, rebellion or insurrection, is kinda vague, but it does list “insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof” (emphasis added), and last I checked, the Twelfth Amendment and 3 USC §15 are laws of the United States. But section 2384, seditious conspiracy, is a much easier case to make:
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
(Again, emphasis added.)
You got a bunch of chucklefucks rejecting the legally mandated transition of power in favor of “ORANGE MAN KING!” Rejecting the Constitution. Trying to overthrow the Constitution, one might say.
Calbeck
The End wasn't The End - Found a new home after the great exodus of 2012

@Meanlucario
It means the sort of person who convinces themselves that it is academically proper to erase the status of women, academically proper to teach preschoolers about sex, and academically proper to argue that systems which guarantee by law the equal status of all races are actually racist. This was always a truism regarding philosophy, a field of “soft science” which is notorious for finding justifications in any sort of human endeavor from eugenics to philanthropy, generally by redefining terms and engaging in exceptionally convoluted reasoning.
For example, an infamous contributor to the massive Soviet famines of the 1930s was directly due to the top minister of agriculture having been installed on grounds of his philosophical views on how agriculture could be redefined at every level - including genetic - in adherence to Soviet principles of social equality. The result was the imposition of techniques and methods which caused massive crop failures (since as it turns out, the “capitalist, profit-driven” methods in use at the time also happened to be in line with actual production interests). But as “capitalism” needed to be driven out of agriculture, and was so ordered by people whose field of expertise didn’t even touch on agriculture, millions died.
The same was true of the National Socialists, who adopted numerous popular philosophical ideals to justify their racism and Hitler’s program for mass extermination of anyone not German (which the Nazis interpreted, as did many prominent philosophers of the day, as its own race). The ideal of “shrinking markets” was applied with an eye towards racial survival, in a very Darwinian sense, to justify wiping out the entire population of Eastern Europe so as to provide farmland for GERMAN farmers. The only reason Nazis thought non-Germans should even exist, in the (relatively) short term, was to provide for the German population until such time as they could be replaced with Germans.
Philosophy is not a “hard science” which relies on verification through experimentation. Often, the results of experimentation are discarded in the “soft sciences” because they do not meet with “consensus”, which is considered far more important in a form of academia where nothing and everything can be “proven” if it’s convoluted enough. Which is where the notion of “overeducated” people inhabiting “ivory towers” comes from.
Background Human
Preenhub - We all know what you were up to this evening~
My Little Pony - 1992 Edition
Not a Llama - Happy April Fools Day!

CHS, Class of 20XX
@Calbeck
The whole point of civil disobedience is not to prevent laws from being executed, but to make a public display of their execution, to dramatize the injustice of those laws.
And the use of force (or advocacy of same) is a key element of the crimes in Chapter 115, so nonviolent protests are necessarily excluded.
And riots are well within the scope of ordinary government business. The job of the police is to deal with criminals; criming harder just means they have more work to do. The problem on January 6 was not the challenge to the Capitol Police’s authority.
And the ROTC building at Kent State was burned at night, when no business was being conducted. And it was 36 hours removed from the shootings. I know weekend warriors are slow, but they’re not that slow.
Calbeck
The End wasn't The End - Found a new home after the great exodus of 2012

@Background Human
Actually, virtually every act of civil disobedience in American history has been in opposition to a given law, particularly to prevent the execution of those laws. Google “protestors chained themselves to” for numerous examples.
You are correct, as I have said, that use of force for preventing the enacting of law is necessary to amount to insurrection, which is one reason I have been telling you from the beginning that your original definition of mere “disrupting government business” was overbroad. I’m glad to see we now agree on the point. At the same time, you have re-adopted the view that destroying government facilities “during the night when no business is being conducted” is not an act of insurrection, when nothing in the insurrection law you cite makes any such distinction. Quite the contrary: “oppos(ing) by force the authority” of “the Government of the United States” is readily effected by destroying a government facility of the United States, since that authority cannot be effected until the facility is rebuilt. You are now arguing, as Merrick Garland did, that burning down the Capitol Building itself would not be an act of insurrection if done between Congressional sessions.
I would certainly hope you were not trying to make this distinction just to avoid sounding like a Republican from the mid-’60s.
That said, you’re entirely mistaken in asserting that the January 6th riots were about challenging Congressional authority, much less the authority of the Capitol Police. As noted already, the crowd’s concerns were about election laws being violated, and demands that those laws be enforced. That is the opposite of opposing the authority of the Government of the United States.
Calbeck
The End wasn't The End - Found a new home after the great exodus of 2012

@Background Human
The crime in which the person accused allegedly brought firearms for the purpose of preventing a legitimate transfer of power but, according to the court and police documents, brought only a pocketknife to the actual riot? Which is why neither he nor anyone else have been charged with insurrection: they did not commit, or even attempt to commit, such an act.
What he is actually accused of doing is on par with thousands of rioters who were arrested - and subsequently let go without charges - in the various political riots of 2016-2020. Namely, clashing with police and bypassing barricades.
Also, it’s a point of interest that none of the four people who have pled to these charges have actually been tried before a court much less convicted; these have all been plea bargains. It is common practice to offer a plea bargain when a conviction is on shaky ground yet still potentially possible. It is also common practice for accused parties to accept a plea bargain in exchange for preferential treatment. This is why neither judges nor lawyers treat a plea bargain as proof of an actual crime when investigating anything allegedly related to it.
I knew a black man who, when stopped in Indio for “gun-running” (he had several lawfully-owned and registered firearms in the trunk of his car, as he had recently been to a shooting range), accepted a “lesser plea” just to get out of jail in exchange for a $500 fine. He had actually been stopped on grounds of having a “constantly-blinking tail light”, which we had proof from a mechanic’s shop was actually impossible because the wires to the light had been burned through - it did not work at all. I begged him to fight the charges, but he just wanted “to be done with it”, and now he has a misdemeanor firearms conviction on his record in California.
Calbeck
The End wasn't The End - Found a new home after the great exodus of 2012

@CaptainXtra
I don’t like anarchists. They tend to get a lot of people killed over their ideology, such as when more black people died in the “anti-racist/anti-police” riots than the police themselves had actually killed that year.
But those who did so were occasionally caught on camera declaring how it was justified because they really wanted a TV and such like, and if another black man had to die so that TV could be obtained, well, tough for the black man. One of them even danced around the dead body, mocking the deceased.
Fun fact: everyone thinks they themselves are moral, and that their opposition is shitty. Welcome to humanity. It doesn’t seem like you’re going to enjoy yourself here.
Background Human
Preenhub - We all know what you were up to this evening~
My Little Pony - 1992 Edition
Not a Llama - Happy April Fools Day!

CHS, Class of 20XX
That said, you’re entirely mistaken in asserting that the January 6th riots were about challenging Congressional authority, much less the authority of the Capitol Police. As noted already, the crowd’s concerns were about election laws being violated, and demands that those laws be enforced. That is the opposite of opposing the authority of the Government of the United States.
Which is why they broke in while the challenge to Arizona’s electoral votes was being entertained. Because they were so concerned with following the law.
Calbeck
The End wasn't The End - Found a new home after the great exodus of 2012

@Background Human
Except they didn’t break in to where the legislators were conducting business, did not disrupt that business, and did not employ force in an attempt to end that business. If clashing with police while breaking into a government facility is sufficient to argue insurrection, then as already noted there are thousands of insurrectionists running free in places like Portland, Seattle, and Kenosha.
Also, the Republicans were the ones bringing up the issue, in opposition to the Democrats’ attempts at ending discussion of the issue. Which is why the first reaction to the Democrat walkout was that it was just that - a partisan walkout, aimed at stopping the Republicans from continuing the process. That is, in fact, the effect the walkout had. By your argument, the actual interest of the rioters would have been to have the process continue.
There had already been identical protests in various States during 2020, where protestors actually DID enter the voting areas of legislative bodies - in some cases, armed - and proceeded to do nothing other than observe the proceedings. This was not deemed insurrection in any of those instances, because the protestors never used force in an attempt to change anything. In the case of January 6th, they did not even enter the rotunda while Congress was in session.
Your allegation that the objective of the rioters was to overthrow the government by preventing the effectuation of election law is simply without foundation, and appears to arise from a preferential set of political beliefs regarding the alleged motivations of your political opposition. That’s very common throughout politics, and it’s why politics are awful.
Calbeck
The End wasn't The End - Found a new home after the great exodus of 2012

@Background Human
It would be ironic if I were ascribing motives on basis of preferred political views, and not both the statements and actions of Democratic Party officials.
Such as those who promoted and condoned assaults on Congressmen. The only Congressmen who have been assaulted or even shot, in each case over political disagreements with their opposition, have been Republicans, and their assailants have been Democrats in each instance. At the same time, Democrats have publicly called for their fellow Democrats to engage in direct conflicts with Republicans and Republican-appointed officials, including for example over the recent Supreme Court decision.
Since you have just finished citing insurrection law to include any use of force in an attempt to delay the enactment of law by an authority of the United States government, and you exclude the necessity of an actual assault or other use of direct force against such an authority when making that argument, are you of the view that calling for the murder of Supreme Court Justices is an act of “seditious conspiracy” - perhaps even insurrection? Especially when done on the steps of the Court itself, or outside the homes of the Justices themselves?
Personally, I wouldn’t. I would call protests what they are, even loudmouthed and angry protests. Although specifically calling for assassination IS illegal, and should be dealt with as the incitation to violence it is.
The Smiling Pony
Princess of Love - Extra special version for those who participated in the Canterlot Wedding 10th anniversary event by contributing art.
Tree of Harmony - Drew someone's OC for the 2022 Community Collab
Elements of Harmony - Had an OC in the 2022 Community Collab
Non-Fungible Trixie -
Thread Starter - Report site bugs here
A Really Hyper Artist - 500+ images under their artist tag
Kinship Through Differences - Celebrated the 11th anniversary of MLP:FIM!
Verified Pegasus - Show us your gorgeous wings!
Preenhub - We all know what you were up to this evening~
Philomena - For helping others attend the 2021 community collab

Manually Breathing
@Calbeck
What alternate reality are you in where the session wasn’t interrupted, the VP rushed out by an armed escort, and a bunch of goons in costume waltzed around the house ransacking whatever they could?
Calbeck
The End wasn't The End - Found a new home after the great exodus of 2012

@The Smiling Pony
The one in which the aforementioned goons are on camera obeying and having chats with police, obeying and even correcting velvet rope guides, and the only thing stolen was Nancy Pelosi’s podium as opposed to “ransacking whatever they could”.
The one in which the Democrats staged a walkout, as they have done before, with the Capitol Police not informing the Republicans of any alleged threats until after the Democrats had left. Which I watched live on CSPAN.
The reality is that source documents and material are far more reliable than a talking-head on TV with a party voting card in their pocket and a history of flogging misinformation/disinformation on behalf of their preferred party. Which has been going on for decades, and is why in 2015 national trust in mass media was less than 35% with Independents and Republicans and barely over 50% even for Democrats.
That was why “fake news” resonated politically - it was seen widely as truth well before Trump announced his candidacy.
Calbeck
The End wasn't The End - Found a new home after the great exodus of 2012

@Meanlucario
The terms were coined by liberals, and propaganda is always bad education.
It was a great thing, for example, to be “anti-education” in an era when the Nazis were teaching children via public school curriculum that Jews were a “parasite race” incapable of creating a civilization of their own, thus justifying their “re-education”. It was a great thing as well, to be “anti-education” when the top Chinese ministers for education asserted that mathematics must be considered secondary to party loyalty, and cheered for the mass-executions of those who dissented.
History is not on the side of people whose arguments about education revolve not around science, but authoritarian decrees as to what science “really is”.
For example, in the current day, we have educators who assert on camera that they are grooming children to adopt sexual preferences at kindergarten, while in public asserting that even suggesting such a thing is crazy talk. And then we have people who say that outlawing such propagandizing as inappropriate for pre-teens is “anti-education” or even “fascism”.
Calbeck
The End wasn't The End - Found a new home after the great exodus of 2012

@Meanlucario
Would you like to start with Socrates - who invented the Socratic Method which has been core to scientific investigation throughout the millennia - and who was also made to commit suicide for disagreeing with the majority of Athenian philosophers of the time, who were Sophists?
From “Sophist” comes the term “sophisticated”, which is generally confused with “intelligent” - but it was Socrates who put their theories and arguments to the test with reasoned debate, and he almost never lost. This is also the basis of the difference between “soft” and “hard” sciences. The “soft science” advocates, whose reputations, power and income were based on having exceptionally convoluted reasoning, ultimately forced Socrates to accept either exile (seen as invalidating his arguments) or suicide by poison. He accepted the poison.
Background Human
Preenhub - We all know what you were up to this evening~
My Little Pony - 1992 Edition
Not a Llama - Happy April Fools Day!

CHS, Class of 20XX
@Calbeck
TIL Gabby Giffords was a Republican.
And neither she nor Scalise were on duty at the time. The Congressional Baseball Game isn’t that important. The last time people got hit with seditious conspiracy charges was in 1954, when Puerto Rican nationalists shot at the House floor while it was in session. 5 Congressfolk were injured: 3 D’s, 2 R’s.
Also, I’m glad we’re in agreement that calls for assassination are illegal. So “Hang Mike Pence!” was what, just a jaunty sea shanty?
Zincy
Non-Fungible Trixie -
Friendship, Art, and Magic (2020) - Took part in the 2020 Community Collab
Wallet After Summer Sale -
The End wasn't The End - Found a new home after the great exodus of 2012

Part-time Pizza Cat
As someone of the “soft sciences” I would put my understanding of the scientific method and the overall process of research inquiry up against yours any day.
Interested in advertising on Derpibooru? Click here for information!
Champions of Equestria

Derpibooru costs over $25 a day to operate - help support us financially!

Syntax quick reference: **bold** *italic* ||hide text|| `code` __underline__ ~~strike~~ ^sup^ %sub%

Detailed syntax guide