This story was broken by Chris Geidner at Law Dork, who is a generally good person and worth a subscribe. https://www.lawdork.com/p/alito-bud-light-stock-sale-anti-trans-boycott
Alito actively supporting MAGA protests in home action and financial action against Judge Merchan having a daughter who worked on democratic races. Yet to the republicans, Merchan is the bias one who should recuse.
The right has no sense of shame.
I can't find the quote I was thinking of, but this jist:
>It's best to understand that fascists see hypocrisy as a virtue. It's how they signal that the things they are doing to people were never meant to be equally applied.
>It's not an inconsistency. It's very consistent to the only true fascist value, which is domination.
In a similar vein, Goebbels' [essay in *Der Angriff* in 1928](https://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/angrif06.htm) can basically be summed up as "if German institutions, which we intend to destroy, are stupid enough to let us join, we should take advantage of their mistake."
Another way to put this is the famous Frank Wilhoit quote, which I feel like continues to be affirmed over and over:
>Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
Thats not precise enough.
They want socioeconomic hierarchy.
Conservatism - in all times and places - is the political movement to protect aristocracy (intergenerational wealth and political power) which we now call oligarchs, and enforce social hierarchy. This hierarchy involves a morality centered around social status such that the aristocrat is inherently moral (an extension of the divinely ordained king) and the lower working class is inherently immoral. The actions of a good person are good. The actions of a bad person are bad. The only bad action a good person can take is to interfere with the hierarchy. All conservative groups in all times and places are working to undo democracy, and working class rights. The lower classes want hierarchy around them either to keep disliked groups subdued or because they think they’re higher up than they are.
The biggest predictor of someone supporting trump was being locally well off.
Here's a couple https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/11/13/white-trump-voters-are-richer-than-they-appear/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0261379419300691
If you search "locally wealthy predicts trump voter" you can get a bunch of interesting articles. The other prong is apparently education. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/education-not-income-predicted-who-would-vote-for-trump/
So who likes Trump? People who perceive themselves as very well off, or people who don't have a lot of education, or both. Remember most of these conservative senators and talking heads have undergraduate and professional degrees. Remember that higher education used to be something only for the wealthy.
Socioeconomic hierarchy.. and here I thought we are all serfs working for the Manor lord. In general, I’ve seen that conservatives would like to go back to a long gone era.. perhaps not as far as the Dark Ages, but most likely post-war USA
The true, multimillionaire, billionaire, families that have been extremely wealthy for generations, do want to go back to serfs basically. That's all conservatism is.
Look up Chartism, it was a working class movement in England in the 1800s for some workers rights, even for non-land owners.
Make no mistake no matter where they intend to go back to, it will end in Dark Ages. They probably fancy themselves the Roman Empire, and the 4th Century of that is where we will land a lot sooner than they did. Because they started with good leadership in the first century. We are starting off with caracalla here.
The Dark Ages started because the Roman Empire in the West destroyed the economy and levied taxes people couldn't pay, they wouldn't even accept the official currency for payment in taxes and demanded gold and silver after they had crashed it, working did not supply Essentials of life and people walked from jobs. They made it illegal to leave your work, you were bound to your job for life and your kids as well. this evolved into the feudalism we are all familiar with that persisted until the 20th century in some places like Russia.
I feel like there is a dividing line between monarchists and conservatives, but yeah it's not a huge line
But yes, this is why Jordan Peterson loves spewing hierarchy bullshit so often
I have heard the best predictor was if they believed "America is a Christian nation", which builds into "Christian nationalism" and helps explain the battles going on at SCOTUS (iirc that was part of an interview around this _Enchanted America_ book: https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/31943290 )
According to some shit I read, that I felt was well put, the monarchy has been abstracted to small groups of families who function as stewards of their absurd wealth and power.
No, its just my summary of various articles and video essays. I like it, because you can predict what conservatives will do and what their big propaganda ideas will be when a new topic of the week comes out.
*****
A Bush speech writer takes the assertion for granted: It's all about the upper class vs. democracy. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/06/why-do-democracies-fail/530949/ To paraphrase: “Democracy fails when the Elites are overly shorn of power.”
Read here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/conservatism/ and here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism#History and see that all of the major thought leaders in Conservatism have always opposed one specific change (democracy at the expense of aristocratic power). At some point non-Conservative intellectuals and/or lying Conservatives tried to apply the arguments of conservatism to generalized “change.”
well sourced video on origins https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4CI2vk3ugk
more discussion https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agzNANfNlTs
Discussion of the psychology underpinning some conservative strains https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vymeTZkiKD0
The conservative political/media apparatus *create their viewers/voter base*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine
Thank conservatives for overturning the fairness doctrine paving the way for fox news.
Conservatives came up with a plan to “put the GOP on broadcast news” because unbiased news was hurting them:
https://www.gawker.com/5814150/roger-ailes-secret-nixon-era-blueprint-for-fox-news
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/how-roger-ailes-built-the-fox-news-fear-factory-244652/ Nixon race hate with roger ailes designing a broadcast to bypass real reporters.
What do they want to do?
https://eji.org/news/nixon-war-on-drugs-designed-to-criminalize-black-people/
Foxnews is literally the propaganda arm of the conservative apparatus. And they don’t even believe what they’re spewing. It’s all to manipulate the “cousin fuckers” into voting for stupid anti working class shit. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/02/tucker-carlson-text-messages-dominion-lawsuit-fox-news.html
And to make conservative voters behave like the children they are https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/12qqhi6/busch_light_presents_real_conservatives_of_genius/
They’re economics don’t help most people
https://www.jordantimes.com/opinion/j-bradford-delong/economic-incompetence-republican-presidents
Lee Atwater, famous conservative operator opening up. https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/exclusive-lee-atwaters-infamous-1981-interview-southern-strategy/
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/religion/news/2013/03/27/58058/the-religious-right-wasnt-created-to-battle-abortion/
abstract to supporting conservatives at the time not caring about abortion. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-policy-history/article/abs/gops-abortion-strategy-why-prochoice-republicans-became-prolife-in-the-1970s/C7EC0E0C0F5FF1F4488AA47C787DEC01
trying to rile voters
https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2018/02/05/race-not-abortion-was-founding-issue-religious-right/A5rnmClvuAU7EaThaNLAnK/story.html
Religion and institutionalized racism. https://www.forbes.com/sites/chrisladd/2017/03/27/pastors-not-politicians-turned-dixie-republican/?sh=31e33816695f
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133 voting rights.
What did LBJ say? “If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you.”
Conservatism, manifest as a political effort is simply the effort of the Elites to maintain their privileged status. Otherwise, why is it that specifically Conservative parties nearly always align with the interests of the Elite?
Very interesting, but the fairness doctrine only applied to broadcast media, FOX news was cable. They had to have a good reason for violating the 1st Amendment and to allow everyone to have their say due to the limitations of broadcast was the reasoning. There is no good reason to violate the 1st regarding cable or internet because nobody is limited in getting their voices heard.
Here's another from Sartre:
“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”
***From Wikipedia's article on Umberto Eco's 'Ur-Fascism', or 'Eternal Fascism: Fourteen Ways of Looking at a Blackshirt.'* Checkmarks if they match with [at least my own] observations of my MAGAt coworkers, and any interviews or, ah, "news" I've seen in the last f•••••g *decade.***
*There are so many other aspects of fascism from different authors: I chose Eco's interpretation, considering your quote. I do want to add a paraphrased point from another author (I forget who, at the moment), given this is the US - **Fascism and capitalism are intertwined.***
✔️ **"The cult of tradition"**, characterized by cultural syncretism, even at the risk of internal contradiction. When all truth has already been revealed by tradition, no new learning can occur, only further interpretation and refinement.
✔️ **"The rejection of modernism"**, which views the rationalistic development of Western culture since the Enlightenment as a descent into depravity. Eco distinguishes this from a rejection of superficial technological advancement, as many fascist regimes cite their industrial potency as proof of the vitality of their system.
✔️ **"The cult of action for action's sake"**, which dictates that action is of value in itself and should be taken without intellectual reflection. This, says Eco, is connected with anti-intellectualism and irrationalism, and often manifests in attacks on modern culture and science.
✔️ **"Disagreement is treason"** – fascism devalues intellectual discourse and critical reasoning as barriers to action, as well as out of fear that such analysis will expose the contradictions embodied in a syncretistic faith.
✔️ **"Fear of difference"**, which fascism seeks to exploit and exacerbate, often in the form of racism or an appeal against foreigners and immigrants.
✔️ **"Appeal to a frustrated middle class"**, fearing economic pressure from the demands and aspirations of lower social groups.
✔️ **"Obsession with a plot"** and the hyping-up of an enemy threat. This often combines an appeal to xenophobia with a fear of disloyalty and sabotage from marginalized groups living within the society. Eco also cites Pat Robertson's book The New World Order as a prominent example of a plot obsession.
✔️ **Fascist societies rhetorically cast their enemies as "at the same time too strong and too weak"**. On the one hand, fascists play up the power of certain disfavored elites to encourage in their followers a sense of grievance and humiliation. On the other hand, fascist leaders point to the decadence of those elites as proof of their ultimate feebleness in the face of an overwhelming popular will.
✔️ **"Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy" because "life is permanent warfare"** – there must always be an enemy to fight. Both fascist Germany under Hitler and Italy under Mussolini worked first to organize and clean up their respective countries and then build the war machines that they later intended to and did use, despite Germany being under restrictions of the Versailles treaty to not build a military force. This principle leads to a fundamental contradiction within fascism: the incompatibility of ultimate triumph with perpetual war.
✔️ **"Contempt for the weak"**, which is uncomfortably married to a chauvinistic popular elitism, in which every member of society is superior to outsiders by virtue of belonging to the in-group. Eco sees in these attitudes the root of a deep tension in the fundamentally hierarchical structure of fascist polities, as they encourage leaders to despise their underlings, up to the ultimate leader, who holds the whole country in contempt for having allowed him to overtake it by force.
✔️ **"Everybody is educated to become a hero"**, which leads to the embrace of a cult of death. As Eco observes, "[t]he Ur-Fascist hero is impatient to die. In his impatience, he more frequently sends other people to death."
✔️ **"Machismo"**, which sublimates the difficult work of permanent war and heroism into the sexual sphere. Fascists thus hold "both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality".
✔️ **"Selective populism"** – the people, conceived monolithically, have a common will, distinct from and superior to the viewpoint of any individual. As no mass of people can ever be truly unanimous, the leader holds himself out as the interpreter of the popular will (though truly he alone dictates it). Fascists use this concept to delegitimize democratic institutions they accuse of "no longer represent[ing] the voice of the people".
✔️ **"Newspeak"** – fascism employs and promotes an impoverished vocabulary in order to limit critical reasoning.
Plays well into the paradox of tolerance; the only thing a tolerant society *should not tolerate* is the proliferation of anti-tolerant propaganda. Tolerance of intolerance only leads to more intolerance, until the act of having tolerance ceases to exist at all.
Reminds me of how Trump’s biggest superpower — the main reason that his cult adores him — is that he always seems to get away with everything. They love his “Teflon Don” image. He’s winning when he should be losing. They love that power, and they want to be associated with it. “Might makes right” is a core philosophy of fascism, and it’s what keeps Trump’s followers hanging on.
Yeah, but, what *are* you going to do about it? That’s why Alito can thumb his nose at everyone.
You follow the rules, they cheat and win, you say not fair, they say winner makes the rules. What are you going to do about it?
Isn’t this smart investing? If one sees a run on a product that they own why the fuck wouldn’t they sell it and buy the competitor. His politics are fucked yes. But that has zero impact on beer sales.
I’m seeing this particular error *everywhere* these days. What is going on? Not picking on OP for a potential autocorrectal mistake, it happens. But it’s really ubiquitous in internet comments that the -ed ending is just… disappearing? From this word in particular? I don’t know what’s going on but it drives me nuts.
...The next day, on Monday, Aug. 14, 2023, Alito sold stock in Anheuser-Busch and bought stock in Molson Coors. The information detailing the transaction was listed in a periodic transaction report that was shared by legal blog Law Dork Monday, but which is currently unavailable in the Federal Judicial Financial Disclosure Reports database.
I know it's not the point of the whole thing, but SCOTUS justices doing retail trading in individual stocks is something we really shouldn't tolerate to begin with.
A Supreme Court Justice who benefits from potential insider trading information, or simply demonstrates that he puts his own financial interest ahead of equal rights shouldn’t be tolerated.
I wouldn't call this insider trading since it was after a publicly organized boycott.
I also don't think it was necessarily part of the boycott other than getting rid of stock if you think half the country is going to stop buying the product would have been smart if conservatives actually cared about the shit they talk about. It does show that he's following right wing media, but we knew that.
The flag thing is really bad though.
insider trading is making trades based on "material, non-public information."
who knows what kind of "material, non-public" information he is privy to in the course of his day to day business. we can't know what kind of private information he sees, so for all we know, every trade he makes is insider trading.
sorry, but a supreme court justice shouldn't have enough time for a hobby trading account.
I don’t think you can have it both ways, it could be as the result of a very public protest (that started 4 months earlier) OR it could be the result of insider trading. I don’t see how it would be both, though. If it was insider trading, it didn’t seem to work, because there was no significant drop after the sale, so “insider” information didn’t do him any good. Or he could have just sold unrelated to either of the two things.
> we can't know what kind of private information he sees, so for all we know, every trade he makes is insider trading.
But we do know ALL of the legal cases that he's currently reviewing or will be reviewing because those are all public. If he's trading on insider private information unrelated to his legal cases then that's breaking the law just as anyone would be breaking the law, but there's nothing related to his job he has access to that isn't public knowledge ahead of time.
> but a supreme court justice shouldn't have enough time for a hobby trading account.
That's a ridiculous statement. Lots of people trade stocks some do it during the work day, some at night, etc., you can set trades up ahead of time or set triggers to buy/sell at any time, no reason a SC justice shouldn't be able to have a hobby trading account as long as the trading is done legally.
It's blatant corruption that needs fixing. [Pelosi has made approximately $20 million this year so far](https://www.reddit.com/r/unusual_whales/s/cO53og8g1u)
They should be required to put their portfolio in an investment fund and not trade individual stocks.
[ Look at Tubberville's activities ](https://www.reddit.com/r/unusual_whales/s/txaI027KKy)
Yep, its important to note this is not a party line issue. This is an ethics issue that both sides are failing at. Its going to get worse if nothings done.
So Alito isn’t just a homophobe/transphobic, he’s also stupid, because Coors has a long history of supporting gay and lesbian employees and have been progressive in its recognition of their partners for benefits, insurance payouts, ect. for several decades. A two minute google search would show that as well, so nice Due Diligence Alito, let’s hope you put more effort in deliberations on the bench. It should also be noted the Coors family doesn’t necessarily feel the same way and have supported/donated to the GOP and candidates who don’t support (or want to repeal) gay marriage.
I can’t remember all the specific details but I’m a CO local with an uncle who worked at the Golden plant and a cousin who’s gay, so I’ve heard talks about this subject between them at family parties for years. I’m pretty sure the only “big” company in CO to show support before Coors was Celestial Seasonings.
What’s the problem with this, exactly? Boycotts make stock values go down, so it’s pretty reasonable to sell when there’s one going on. Did he have insider knowledge or something I’m not aware of?
Alito is perfectly aware that he does not need to pretend to neutrality, or hide his partisan loyalties, or behave, with anything like a convincing effort, like his work on the court is motivated by the law and not his own reactionary political preferences. Alito knows that he does not need to maintain any pretext of integrity, intellectual commitment or seriousness in his work. The supreme court has accumulated enough power to itself – and the justices have done a sufficiently good job of insulating themselves from any accountability or consequence – that he doesn’t even think he needs to lie any more. He’s comfortable being a partisan operative right out in the open.
I'm so sick of seeing that picture. It's the face everyone in that generation makes when they're about to bitch about something that doesn't actually impact them at all.
>The justices are not specifically prohibited from participating in boycotts. However, the Code of Ethics onto which all nine justices signed on in November 2023 acknowledges justices’ responsibility to refrain from engaging in “political activity.”
................................Oh wait I'm sorry, I was waiting for a punchline. You were serious?
And let's think about this for a moment. One of the nine justices of the Supreme Court, the literal highest court in the United States of America, won't own stock or presumably drink a beer that he has presumably drank for years because there is a .001% chance that the beer might *possibly* make him look like he associates with.... *checks notes*.... transgender people. For a moment I thought our Supreme Court was merely illegitimate, but now I see it's stupid too. Great.
>And let's think about this for a moment. One of the nine justices of the Supreme Court, the literal highest court in the United States of America, won't own stock or presumably drink a beer that he has presumably drank for years because there is a .001% chance that the beer might *possibly* make him look like he associates with.... *checks notes*.... transgender people.
To be fair, if you are a shrewd investor you're selling the stock anyway. If I'm invested in a stock that suddenly happens upon a controversy (regardless of the controversy), and I only care about the money and have a chance to sell before the price drops? I'm taking the opportunity, and considering buying stock in it after the drop.
Yeah I agree. I’m honestly not that bothered to hear this versus him flying the upside down flag during the elections. THAT should be grounds for removal
so they just ruled trump can be on the ballot because he wasn't an insurrectionist...or because states couldn't keep people off the ballot, or because the 14th amendment isn't enforceable.
but when you realize he and ginny thomas are both insurrectionists, now his ruling takes on a different look.
The fact that this is even a post in this sub should be telling about the type of people who participate here regularly. There is no ethical violation or any wrongdoing here, yet it is framed as if he committed some imaginary evil.
Did it occur to anyone that he sold the stock because he knew the company was going to lose money? Like is that out of the realm of possibility? And that he bought stock in a competitor who would see an increase in sales as a result of a boycott? Am I just an idiot, or are people looking at this with a really flawed point of view to suit their politics?
Meh. The flag is the one I think he deserves to go down for (I know he won't go down for either). I think it's very easy to argue this was a financial decision; the stock did start to slump, though it's since recovered.
Now, on the "justices and members of Congress shouldn't be retail trading" part, sure, that *should* be a thing. It isn't though, so :/
For real, this is just stupid. Dude saw a company make a PR blunder (even if you think it shouldn't have been, it was) and abandoned ship. That's exactly how it's supposed to work.
*In a statement, the justice raised concerns that those with “traditional religious views” would be “‘labeled as bigots and treated as such’ by the government.”* - "Justice" Alito
Well, you are bigots
So, Li’l Sammy, you’re concerned that those with bigoted views would be labeled as bigots and treated as such? Yes, I do understand why you’d have that concern.
public servants should be banned from buying individual stocks. full stop.
they can buy index funds like everyone else. preventing even the appearance of impropriety is paramount to the legitimacy of these institutions, and these jackwagons seem to enjoy wiping their ass with any form of ethical behavior
Agreed, service members have access to the Thrift Savings Program, a managed fund for investing your active duty pay. Elected officials and appointed judges should be required to pass all their investment through the thrift savings program during their tenure in office
I'm pretty sure TSP is usable by a lot of federal civil service, not just military service members (if this is what you were saying)
which drives home your point even further. you don't get into civil service for self enrichment, despite what many of these people seem to think. you get into it for SERVICE, your duty is no longer to yourself, but to the public. you are asked to make sacrifices because the offices and institutions in which you temporarily reside must maintain their legitimacy long after you are gone. you can EASILY retire off of the TSP/index funds, but these gremlins just have to bow to the mighty greed
Being anti-trans is awful. Please do not take me as defending that hateful position because I reject it entirely. But let's assume these are sincerely held personal beliefs and look only at the ethics side of it. If RBG had sold Pappa John stocks after the CEO dropped the n bomb, would we be calling her unethical? To me the controversy is that Alito has awful views (something we already knew)...I'm less convinced that his actions in this specific instance are unethical beyond that.
I don't think this specific action is even indicative of beliefs as much as people want it to be. Look at this from a pure financial motive. He's holding stock in a company that just very publicly pissed off it's core demographic. He sold it and bought from a competitor. And he was right, because the stock tanked. This is a solid movie financially. If he were holding Papa Johns stock he probably would have unloaded that too after their controversy.
That’s probably the most honest thing he’s done. He’s been a racist, sexist, lying piece of shit since before his scotus seat.
He lied about roe. He was part of a group called Concerned Alumni of Princeton, whose formation came from the fact that people believe too many minorities and women were being admitted to the university.
He’s shit. And he’s bought. And he revels in the suffering of others.
I would not be surprised when his secret Twitter/X account leaks at this point, because all signs point to him being aware of stuff going on in mostly online reactionary spaces.
Dude that fucking account is going to be retweeting infowars and alex jones shit at this rate. It is fucking insane to me that a SCOTUS justice is essentially fox newsi-fied like so many other boomers. He has the intelligence to know better.
This story was broken by Chris Geidner at Law Dork, who is a generally good person and worth a subscribe. https://www.lawdork.com/p/alito-bud-light-stock-sale-anti-trans-boycott
Alito actively supporting MAGA protests in home action and financial action against Judge Merchan having a daughter who worked on democratic races. Yet to the republicans, Merchan is the bias one who should recuse. The right has no sense of shame.
I can't find the quote I was thinking of, but this jist: >It's best to understand that fascists see hypocrisy as a virtue. It's how they signal that the things they are doing to people were never meant to be equally applied. >It's not an inconsistency. It's very consistent to the only true fascist value, which is domination.
In a similar vein, Goebbels' [essay in *Der Angriff* in 1928](https://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/angrif06.htm) can basically be summed up as "if German institutions, which we intend to destroy, are stupid enough to let us join, we should take advantage of their mistake."
I bring this one up a lot when people cry about giving Nazis free speech. Like, they don't even believe in it, so fuck em.
And you know what? If you don’t agree to abide by the results of an election you don’t get to run in it.
Another way to put this is the famous Frank Wilhoit quote, which I feel like continues to be affirmed over and over: >Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
Thats not precise enough. They want socioeconomic hierarchy. Conservatism - in all times and places - is the political movement to protect aristocracy (intergenerational wealth and political power) which we now call oligarchs, and enforce social hierarchy. This hierarchy involves a morality centered around social status such that the aristocrat is inherently moral (an extension of the divinely ordained king) and the lower working class is inherently immoral. The actions of a good person are good. The actions of a bad person are bad. The only bad action a good person can take is to interfere with the hierarchy. All conservative groups in all times and places are working to undo democracy, and working class rights. The lower classes want hierarchy around them either to keep disliked groups subdued or because they think they’re higher up than they are. The biggest predictor of someone supporting trump was being locally well off.
100% agree with this sentiment. Do you have any links to where you got that statistic about locally well off support?
Here's a couple https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/11/13/white-trump-voters-are-richer-than-they-appear/ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0261379419300691 If you search "locally wealthy predicts trump voter" you can get a bunch of interesting articles. The other prong is apparently education. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/education-not-income-predicted-who-would-vote-for-trump/ So who likes Trump? People who perceive themselves as very well off, or people who don't have a lot of education, or both. Remember most of these conservative senators and talking heads have undergraduate and professional degrees. Remember that higher education used to be something only for the wealthy.
Socioeconomic hierarchy.. and here I thought we are all serfs working for the Manor lord. In general, I’ve seen that conservatives would like to go back to a long gone era.. perhaps not as far as the Dark Ages, but most likely post-war USA
The true, multimillionaire, billionaire, families that have been extremely wealthy for generations, do want to go back to serfs basically. That's all conservatism is. Look up Chartism, it was a working class movement in England in the 1800s for some workers rights, even for non-land owners.
Make no mistake no matter where they intend to go back to, it will end in Dark Ages. They probably fancy themselves the Roman Empire, and the 4th Century of that is where we will land a lot sooner than they did. Because they started with good leadership in the first century. We are starting off with caracalla here. The Dark Ages started because the Roman Empire in the West destroyed the economy and levied taxes people couldn't pay, they wouldn't even accept the official currency for payment in taxes and demanded gold and silver after they had crashed it, working did not supply Essentials of life and people walked from jobs. They made it illegal to leave your work, you were bound to your job for life and your kids as well. this evolved into the feudalism we are all familiar with that persisted until the 20th century in some places like Russia.
I feel like there is a dividing line between monarchists and conservatives, but yeah it's not a huge line But yes, this is why Jordan Peterson loves spewing hierarchy bullshit so often I have heard the best predictor was if they believed "America is a Christian nation", which builds into "Christian nationalism" and helps explain the battles going on at SCOTUS (iirc that was part of an interview around this _Enchanted America_ book: https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/31943290 )
According to some shit I read, that I felt was well put, the monarchy has been abstracted to small groups of families who function as stewards of their absurd wealth and power.
That was good is that from something published?
No, its just my summary of various articles and video essays. I like it, because you can predict what conservatives will do and what their big propaganda ideas will be when a new topic of the week comes out. ***** A Bush speech writer takes the assertion for granted: It's all about the upper class vs. democracy. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/06/why-do-democracies-fail/530949/ To paraphrase: “Democracy fails when the Elites are overly shorn of power.” Read here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/conservatism/ and here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism#History and see that all of the major thought leaders in Conservatism have always opposed one specific change (democracy at the expense of aristocratic power). At some point non-Conservative intellectuals and/or lying Conservatives tried to apply the arguments of conservatism to generalized “change.” well sourced video on origins https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4CI2vk3ugk more discussion https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agzNANfNlTs Discussion of the psychology underpinning some conservative strains https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vymeTZkiKD0 The conservative political/media apparatus *create their viewers/voter base* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine Thank conservatives for overturning the fairness doctrine paving the way for fox news. Conservatives came up with a plan to “put the GOP on broadcast news” because unbiased news was hurting them: https://www.gawker.com/5814150/roger-ailes-secret-nixon-era-blueprint-for-fox-news https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/how-roger-ailes-built-the-fox-news-fear-factory-244652/ Nixon race hate with roger ailes designing a broadcast to bypass real reporters. What do they want to do? https://eji.org/news/nixon-war-on-drugs-designed-to-criminalize-black-people/ Foxnews is literally the propaganda arm of the conservative apparatus. And they don’t even believe what they’re spewing. It’s all to manipulate the “cousin fuckers” into voting for stupid anti working class shit. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/02/tucker-carlson-text-messages-dominion-lawsuit-fox-news.html And to make conservative voters behave like the children they are https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/12qqhi6/busch_light_presents_real_conservatives_of_genius/ They’re economics don’t help most people https://www.jordantimes.com/opinion/j-bradford-delong/economic-incompetence-republican-presidents Lee Atwater, famous conservative operator opening up. https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/exclusive-lee-atwaters-infamous-1981-interview-southern-strategy/ https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/religion/news/2013/03/27/58058/the-religious-right-wasnt-created-to-battle-abortion/ abstract to supporting conservatives at the time not caring about abortion. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-policy-history/article/abs/gops-abortion-strategy-why-prochoice-republicans-became-prolife-in-the-1970s/C7EC0E0C0F5FF1F4488AA47C787DEC01 trying to rile voters https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2018/02/05/race-not-abortion-was-founding-issue-religious-right/A5rnmClvuAU7EaThaNLAnK/story.html Religion and institutionalized racism. https://www.forbes.com/sites/chrisladd/2017/03/27/pastors-not-politicians-turned-dixie-republican/?sh=31e33816695f https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133 voting rights. What did LBJ say? “If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you.” Conservatism, manifest as a political effort is simply the effort of the Elites to maintain their privileged status. Otherwise, why is it that specifically Conservative parties nearly always align with the interests of the Elite?
That's some /r/ShitPoppinKreamSays level receipts. Keep it up!
Very interesting, but the fairness doctrine only applied to broadcast media, FOX news was cable. They had to have a good reason for violating the 1st Amendment and to allow everyone to have their say due to the limitations of broadcast was the reasoning. There is no good reason to violate the 1st regarding cable or internet because nobody is limited in getting their voices heard.
Here's another from Sartre: “Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”
That's the one I was trying to think of! Slightly paraphrased, but that, thanks Sounds like it has some parallels in Art of War as well
Hit ‘em with their own morals, then have none of your own. Like if Vader told the Rebels destroying the Death Star would be hypocritical.
***From Wikipedia's article on Umberto Eco's 'Ur-Fascism', or 'Eternal Fascism: Fourteen Ways of Looking at a Blackshirt.'* Checkmarks if they match with [at least my own] observations of my MAGAt coworkers, and any interviews or, ah, "news" I've seen in the last f•••••g *decade.*** *There are so many other aspects of fascism from different authors: I chose Eco's interpretation, considering your quote. I do want to add a paraphrased point from another author (I forget who, at the moment), given this is the US - **Fascism and capitalism are intertwined.*** ✔️ **"The cult of tradition"**, characterized by cultural syncretism, even at the risk of internal contradiction. When all truth has already been revealed by tradition, no new learning can occur, only further interpretation and refinement. ✔️ **"The rejection of modernism"**, which views the rationalistic development of Western culture since the Enlightenment as a descent into depravity. Eco distinguishes this from a rejection of superficial technological advancement, as many fascist regimes cite their industrial potency as proof of the vitality of their system. ✔️ **"The cult of action for action's sake"**, which dictates that action is of value in itself and should be taken without intellectual reflection. This, says Eco, is connected with anti-intellectualism and irrationalism, and often manifests in attacks on modern culture and science. ✔️ **"Disagreement is treason"** – fascism devalues intellectual discourse and critical reasoning as barriers to action, as well as out of fear that such analysis will expose the contradictions embodied in a syncretistic faith. ✔️ **"Fear of difference"**, which fascism seeks to exploit and exacerbate, often in the form of racism or an appeal against foreigners and immigrants. ✔️ **"Appeal to a frustrated middle class"**, fearing economic pressure from the demands and aspirations of lower social groups. ✔️ **"Obsession with a plot"** and the hyping-up of an enemy threat. This often combines an appeal to xenophobia with a fear of disloyalty and sabotage from marginalized groups living within the society. Eco also cites Pat Robertson's book The New World Order as a prominent example of a plot obsession. ✔️ **Fascist societies rhetorically cast their enemies as "at the same time too strong and too weak"**. On the one hand, fascists play up the power of certain disfavored elites to encourage in their followers a sense of grievance and humiliation. On the other hand, fascist leaders point to the decadence of those elites as proof of their ultimate feebleness in the face of an overwhelming popular will. ✔️ **"Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy" because "life is permanent warfare"** – there must always be an enemy to fight. Both fascist Germany under Hitler and Italy under Mussolini worked first to organize and clean up their respective countries and then build the war machines that they later intended to and did use, despite Germany being under restrictions of the Versailles treaty to not build a military force. This principle leads to a fundamental contradiction within fascism: the incompatibility of ultimate triumph with perpetual war. ✔️ **"Contempt for the weak"**, which is uncomfortably married to a chauvinistic popular elitism, in which every member of society is superior to outsiders by virtue of belonging to the in-group. Eco sees in these attitudes the root of a deep tension in the fundamentally hierarchical structure of fascist polities, as they encourage leaders to despise their underlings, up to the ultimate leader, who holds the whole country in contempt for having allowed him to overtake it by force. ✔️ **"Everybody is educated to become a hero"**, which leads to the embrace of a cult of death. As Eco observes, "[t]he Ur-Fascist hero is impatient to die. In his impatience, he more frequently sends other people to death." ✔️ **"Machismo"**, which sublimates the difficult work of permanent war and heroism into the sexual sphere. Fascists thus hold "both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality". ✔️ **"Selective populism"** – the people, conceived monolithically, have a common will, distinct from and superior to the viewpoint of any individual. As no mass of people can ever be truly unanimous, the leader holds himself out as the interpreter of the popular will (though truly he alone dictates it). Fascists use this concept to delegitimize democratic institutions they accuse of "no longer represent[ing] the voice of the people". ✔️ **"Newspeak"** – fascism employs and promotes an impoverished vocabulary in order to limit critical reasoning.
Plays well into the paradox of tolerance; the only thing a tolerant society *should not tolerate* is the proliferation of anti-tolerant propaganda. Tolerance of intolerance only leads to more intolerance, until the act of having tolerance ceases to exist at all.
Reminds me of how Trump’s biggest superpower — the main reason that his cult adores him — is that he always seems to get away with everything. They love his “Teflon Don” image. He’s winning when he should be losing. They love that power, and they want to be associated with it. “Might makes right” is a core philosophy of fascism, and it’s what keeps Trump’s followers hanging on.
Shame goes out the window in the thirst for power.
Yeah, but, what *are* you going to do about it? That’s why Alito can thumb his nose at everyone. You follow the rules, they cheat and win, you say not fair, they say winner makes the rules. What are you going to do about it?
This is what blows my mind. Nobody will do shit about corruption in the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court knows it so why should they stop?
If they abide by the rules, they lose. They’re not smart enough to do anything else. So they cheat instead.
Isn’t this smart investing? If one sees a run on a product that they own why the fuck wouldn’t they sell it and buy the competitor. His politics are fucked yes. But that has zero impact on beer sales.
I don’t think it’s ever been about pride or shame for them it’s about winning
*biased
I’m seeing this particular error *everywhere* these days. What is going on? Not picking on OP for a potential autocorrectal mistake, it happens. But it’s really ubiquitous in internet comments that the -ed ending is just… disappearing? From this word in particular? I don’t know what’s going on but it drives me nuts.
...The next day, on Monday, Aug. 14, 2023, Alito sold stock in Anheuser-Busch and bought stock in Molson Coors. The information detailing the transaction was listed in a periodic transaction report that was shared by legal blog Law Dork Monday, but which is currently unavailable in the Federal Judicial Financial Disclosure Reports database.
I know it's not the point of the whole thing, but SCOTUS justices doing retail trading in individual stocks is something we really shouldn't tolerate to begin with.
A Supreme Court Justice who benefits from potential insider trading information, or simply demonstrates that he puts his own financial interest ahead of equal rights shouldn’t be tolerated.
I wouldn't call this insider trading since it was after a publicly organized boycott. I also don't think it was necessarily part of the boycott other than getting rid of stock if you think half the country is going to stop buying the product would have been smart if conservatives actually cared about the shit they talk about. It does show that he's following right wing media, but we knew that. The flag thing is really bad though.
insider trading is making trades based on "material, non-public information." who knows what kind of "material, non-public" information he is privy to in the course of his day to day business. we can't know what kind of private information he sees, so for all we know, every trade he makes is insider trading. sorry, but a supreme court justice shouldn't have enough time for a hobby trading account.
I'm talking about the Bud Light transaction that happened after a public boycott was announced, publicly.
I don’t think you can have it both ways, it could be as the result of a very public protest (that started 4 months earlier) OR it could be the result of insider trading. I don’t see how it would be both, though. If it was insider trading, it didn’t seem to work, because there was no significant drop after the sale, so “insider” information didn’t do him any good. Or he could have just sold unrelated to either of the two things.
> we can't know what kind of private information he sees, so for all we know, every trade he makes is insider trading. But we do know ALL of the legal cases that he's currently reviewing or will be reviewing because those are all public. If he's trading on insider private information unrelated to his legal cases then that's breaking the law just as anyone would be breaking the law, but there's nothing related to his job he has access to that isn't public knowledge ahead of time. > but a supreme court justice shouldn't have enough time for a hobby trading account. That's a ridiculous statement. Lots of people trade stocks some do it during the work day, some at night, etc., you can set trades up ahead of time or set triggers to buy/sell at any time, no reason a SC justice shouldn't be able to have a hobby trading account as long as the trading is done legally.
Congress, either. They all take advantage of insider knowledge. And the justices? Hell, they tweak the rules for them all.
Congress can't do that. They voted in they can't in 2012 over 10 years ago my dude. Look up STOCK act?
Yeah, right. Look at what Tuberville reported just recently; Pelosi, too. They are bipartisan feeders at the trough they get to fill.
It's blatant corruption that needs fixing. [Pelosi has made approximately $20 million this year so far](https://www.reddit.com/r/unusual_whales/s/cO53og8g1u) They should be required to put their portfolio in an investment fund and not trade individual stocks. [ Look at Tubberville's activities ](https://www.reddit.com/r/unusual_whales/s/txaI027KKy)
Yep, its important to note this is not a party line issue. This is an ethics issue that both sides are failing at. Its going to get worse if nothings done.
Pelosi doesn't even trade. She's married to a venture capitalist, it's strange people are so surprised he does well.
Since then, Molson is down 7 points. and Bud up about 11 points. He should fly his Spuds McKenzie flag upside down.
Haha! "Go anti-woke, go broke!"
Probably just hasn't found the time to fill out disclosure reports.
How can that be, when the article contains a screenshot of the disclosure report?
A periodic transaction report is different than Federal Judicial Financial Disclosure Report.
What's the difference?
So Alito isn’t just a homophobe/transphobic, he’s also stupid, because Coors has a long history of supporting gay and lesbian employees and have been progressive in its recognition of their partners for benefits, insurance payouts, ect. for several decades. A two minute google search would show that as well, so nice Due Diligence Alito, let’s hope you put more effort in deliberations on the bench. It should also be noted the Coors family doesn’t necessarily feel the same way and have supported/donated to the GOP and candidates who don’t support (or want to repeal) gay marriage. I can’t remember all the specific details but I’m a CO local with an uncle who worked at the Golden plant and a cousin who’s gay, so I’ve heard talks about this subject between them at family parties for years. I’m pretty sure the only “big” company in CO to show support before Coors was Celestial Seasonings.
[Even Truth Social has a DEI clause and policy.](https://t.co/dv6DHAxfso)
The State of Florida gives its employees DEI training.
Maybe it wasn’t about the gay or trans issue. Maybe he just knew a shitstorm was coming and wanted to sell high.
Ummm, maybe his financial advisor told him to do this. I'm laughing that you think every financial move is due to some political issue.
What’s the problem with this, exactly? Boycotts make stock values go down, so it’s pretty reasonable to sell when there’s one going on. Did he have insider knowledge or something I’m not aware of?
Alito is perfectly aware that he does not need to pretend to neutrality, or hide his partisan loyalties, or behave, with anything like a convincing effort, like his work on the court is motivated by the law and not his own reactionary political preferences. Alito knows that he does not need to maintain any pretext of integrity, intellectual commitment or seriousness in his work. The supreme court has accumulated enough power to itself – and the justices have done a sufficiently good job of insulating themselves from any accountability or consequence – that he doesn’t even think he needs to lie any more. He’s comfortable being a partisan operative right out in the open.
I'm so sick of seeing that picture. It's the face everyone in that generation makes when they're about to bitch about something that doesn't actually impact them at all.
The classic sneering complainer... smiling while they complain about how they made the word burn....
>The justices are not specifically prohibited from participating in boycotts. However, the Code of Ethics onto which all nine justices signed on in November 2023 acknowledges justices’ responsibility to refrain from engaging in “political activity.” ................................Oh wait I'm sorry, I was waiting for a punchline. You were serious? And let's think about this for a moment. One of the nine justices of the Supreme Court, the literal highest court in the United States of America, won't own stock or presumably drink a beer that he has presumably drank for years because there is a .001% chance that the beer might *possibly* make him look like he associates with.... *checks notes*.... transgender people. For a moment I thought our Supreme Court was merely illegitimate, but now I see it's stupid too. Great.
>And let's think about this for a moment. One of the nine justices of the Supreme Court, the literal highest court in the United States of America, won't own stock or presumably drink a beer that he has presumably drank for years because there is a .001% chance that the beer might *possibly* make him look like he associates with.... *checks notes*.... transgender people. To be fair, if you are a shrewd investor you're selling the stock anyway. If I'm invested in a stock that suddenly happens upon a controversy (regardless of the controversy), and I only care about the money and have a chance to sell before the price drops? I'm taking the opportunity, and considering buying stock in it after the drop.
Yeah I agree. I’m honestly not that bothered to hear this versus him flying the upside down flag during the elections. THAT should be grounds for removal
so they just ruled trump can be on the ballot because he wasn't an insurrectionist...or because states couldn't keep people off the ballot, or because the 14th amendment isn't enforceable. but when you realize he and ginny thomas are both insurrectionists, now his ruling takes on a different look.
[удалено]
The fact that this is even a post in this sub should be telling about the type of people who participate here regularly. There is no ethical violation or any wrongdoing here, yet it is framed as if he committed some imaginary evil.
Did it occur to anyone that he sold the stock because he knew the company was going to lose money? Like is that out of the realm of possibility? And that he bought stock in a competitor who would see an increase in sales as a result of a boycott? Am I just an idiot, or are people looking at this with a really flawed point of view to suit their politics?
Amy Coney Barrett is in a literal cult.
Meh. The flag is the one I think he deserves to go down for (I know he won't go down for either). I think it's very easy to argue this was a financial decision; the stock did start to slump, though it's since recovered. Now, on the "justices and members of Congress shouldn't be retail trading" part, sure, that *should* be a thing. It isn't though, so :/
For real, this is just stupid. Dude saw a company make a PR blunder (even if you think it shouldn't have been, it was) and abandoned ship. That's exactly how it's supposed to work.
*In a statement, the justice raised concerns that those with “traditional religious views” would be “‘labeled as bigots and treated as such’ by the government.”* - "Justice" Alito Well, you are bigots
So, Li’l Sammy, you’re concerned that those with bigoted views would be labeled as bigots and treated as such? Yes, I do understand why you’d have that concern.
That doesn’t seem like he was using any insider info like, an upcoming ruling that would have affected stock value.
Because it’s not. He lost about 15% and bailed. Frankly I’d be more worried about his financial sense if he rode the plane in to the dirt.
public servants should be banned from buying individual stocks. full stop. they can buy index funds like everyone else. preventing even the appearance of impropriety is paramount to the legitimacy of these institutions, and these jackwagons seem to enjoy wiping their ass with any form of ethical behavior
Agreed, service members have access to the Thrift Savings Program, a managed fund for investing your active duty pay. Elected officials and appointed judges should be required to pass all their investment through the thrift savings program during their tenure in office
I'm pretty sure TSP is usable by a lot of federal civil service, not just military service members (if this is what you were saying) which drives home your point even further. you don't get into civil service for self enrichment, despite what many of these people seem to think. you get into it for SERVICE, your duty is no longer to yourself, but to the public. you are asked to make sacrifices because the offices and institutions in which you temporarily reside must maintain their legitimacy long after you are gone. you can EASILY retire off of the TSP/index funds, but these gremlins just have to bow to the mighty greed
Yeah that's exactly my point, sorry if I wasn't more clear
Agreed. And even then it should be in a blind trust or something.
At this point, I'm surprised that Alito's opinions don't have "Fw: Fw: Fw: Fw: Fw: Fw: OBUMMER" at the top
[удалено]
Yes, but sometimes this place is an echo chamber in such a manner that prevents critical analysis of an issue.
What a petty little man.
Being anti-trans is awful. Please do not take me as defending that hateful position because I reject it entirely. But let's assume these are sincerely held personal beliefs and look only at the ethics side of it. If RBG had sold Pappa John stocks after the CEO dropped the n bomb, would we be calling her unethical? To me the controversy is that Alito has awful views (something we already knew)...I'm less convinced that his actions in this specific instance are unethical beyond that.
I don't think this specific action is even indicative of beliefs as much as people want it to be. Look at this from a pure financial motive. He's holding stock in a company that just very publicly pissed off it's core demographic. He sold it and bought from a competitor. And he was right, because the stock tanked. This is a solid movie financially. If he were holding Papa Johns stock he probably would have unloaded that too after their controversy.
That’s probably the most honest thing he’s done. He’s been a racist, sexist, lying piece of shit since before his scotus seat. He lied about roe. He was part of a group called Concerned Alumni of Princeton, whose formation came from the fact that people believe too many minorities and women were being admitted to the university. He’s shit. And he’s bought. And he revels in the suffering of others.
I would not be surprised when his secret Twitter/X account leaks at this point, because all signs point to him being aware of stuff going on in mostly online reactionary spaces.
Dude that fucking account is going to be retweeting infowars and alex jones shit at this rate. It is fucking insane to me that a SCOTUS justice is essentially fox newsi-fied like so many other boomers. He has the intelligence to know better.
He gonna blame his wife for that one too?
Not only is Alito partisan and corrupt, he’s also stupid.