3
OconusLurex 3 points ago +3 / -0

Sorry, I deleted my comment right after posting because I rewatched and this was entirely correct; she says that she called the Election Integrity Project and had it changed to independent. I had somehow missed that when I was initially watching the testimony. My apologies.

And yes, totally agreed; everything that she described is completely on point. My background is somewhat similar to hers, and the worst racism I've witnessed has been from Black people (especially other women,) in Black-majority cities/areas, against white men. If the white men were also wearing "GOP" tags around their necks, I can't imagine how bad it would be.

4
OconusLurex 4 points ago +4 / -0

In one part of the thread, she says it's significant that 12/9 is the day after the Fed safe harbor deadline, and in the next part she's saying that in Bush vs Gore, 12/12 was in time for the Fed safe harbor deadline. So is the deadline on the 8th or after the 12th?

I'm clearly missing something here. Can anyone explain better than the twitter thread does?

10
OconusLurex 10 points ago +10 / -0

She's the intersectional slam poet ("Activist. Healer. Radical intersectionalist poet. Selfless and brave. Committed to feminism, social justice and armed peaceful protest") alter ego of Andrew Doyle, and they're both hilarious. Her twatter account is gold, as is her book "Woke: A Guide to Social Justice" (even more hilarious in audiobook form,) and there are some great interviews with Andrew Doyle out there.

One of the grandest trolls was a ridiculous article Doyle sent in to The Independent, under a pseudonym. In it, he pretended to be a "comedy aficionado" and bemoaned the racism and sexism in stand up, and recommended truly absurd ways, not just censor, but outlaw it, and make venues have "reduced anxiety" performances, allowing the audience to contact the comedian in advance to say which topics they needed to be avoided, etc- but they took him completely seriously and published it. Doyle later revealed that every fourth letter of every sentence spells out, "Titania McGrath wrote this you gullible hacks.”

2
OconusLurex 2 points ago +2 / -0

Like the Democrat rep yesterday that brought up, on at least 3 separate occasions, how the first witness was found "not credible by a judge," and each time everyone had to tell him that the witness had never given testimony before, and never dealt with any judge, and they had no idea what he was talking about. He didn't have any more details to defend his position, so he'd just go silent, then the next time he spoke start up again, "that witness was determined not to be credible by a judge!!" Over & over.

2
OconusLurex 2 points ago +2 / -0

I don't know; what we saw of her is in the context of speaking publicly before a governmental body about something incredibly consequential, likely feeling like she needs to parse each word for accuracy, etc. She may be very different outside of that context.

The fact that she came forward & put herself out there like that demonstrates that she has a bravery that many more assured-seeming people do not.

The D representatives certainly mistook that for weakness and decided to dogpile, though. Hopefully she doesn't have to deal with their mob as well.

4
OconusLurex 4 points ago +4 / -0

That little big club jokey-joke segment at the end between the judge and the state attorneys was revolting.

4
OconusLurex 4 points ago +4 / -0

Here's just one example of many. What's missing here is the context, where the woman that she's attacking is the most soft spoken, kind, honorable, thoughtful and detail oriented witness you could ever imagine, and painfully nervous. No one could doubt the witness' honesty; she was clearly terrified, but needed to do this because she loved her country so much. She was also testifying partly about intimidation and bullying, and the Dem reps (this rep wasn't the only one) jumped on her, using bullying and intimidation the first moment they got.

10
OconusLurex 10 points ago +11 / -1

Exactly. The massive companies can afford the highly sophisticated AI that would be required to carefully scan all posts in real time. Additionally, it will encourage them to increase the stringency, and insta-block anything that even seems like it could have controversial content.

The largest corps also will also be able to afford any lawsuits that arise if some content sneaks through the censors. Small platforms never will.

Sites like this would have to either keep their "platform" status, but stop blocking content based on things like being an anti-Trump shill, which would quickly turn the site into another place for reddit content, or become a "publisher" and be required to censor everything- which would really mean ceasing to exist.

Some people argue that it'd work if it only applied to sites that are a certain size, but again, take into account a site like this. We are certainly not a small site, and just keep growing - but will never have the resources that cutouts like FB have.

Eliminating 230 sounds good in theory, but in practice, it would give big tech co's the perfect opportunity to get rid of all their up & coming competition, AND increase censorship and control of content.

9
OconusLurex 9 points ago +9 / -0

Also the law firm behind the smear against Jim Jordan after he grilled Rosenstein, and announced that he was hoping to bring articles of impeachment against him.

Jordan's teenaged nephew was killed in a car accident that same night, and I'll never stop wondering if that wasn't a coincidence.

2
OconusLurex 2 points ago +2 / -0

Yes - but slower only in speaking, because she was absolutely terrified.

Jessy's testimony was also exceptional, demonstrating how they trained and pressured her to break rules, that other locations met the standards, but this one location was purposefully breaking laws and that there was a culture of disrespect there for the entire voting system and institution, and that they operated through intimidation.

The testimony of how they treated her, like throwing the name tag in her face, was so powerful, especially to anyone who's had a job where they've been treated like that. This abusive and intimidation-based SOP was completely reinforced by the Dem reps, who were disrespectful (eg. the guy in the duckbill mask, after she accurately cited laws about voter ID in last-minute registration, dismissing her, with "OK, you're confused," and turning his mic away in contempt, the now-infamous unhinged woman asking for her and writing down, her full maiden name in a way that was both racist and clearly intimidatory.)

The Dem reps treating someone who is that soft spoken, kind, non confrontational, and bravely standing up despite her fear, because she loves her country, like that, really showed what they're like.

And she had a perfect, almost encyclopedic memory for every detail - dates, names, everything. Quietly observant woman with the rosary seriously brought the receipts.

3
OconusLurex 3 points ago +3 / -0

It was probably the Democrat rep that was livetwatting throughout the hearing rather than listening.

view more: Next ›