Dan Ng

[Dan Ng @zanthryn]

Republicans saying something doesn't make it true; unless their opposition, the people most incentivized to refute them if they are saying something false, accept what they say as true. It's like earnestly answering a loaded question like a "when did you stop beating your wife" line of questioning. you don't have to start talking about how happy you are with your wife now, how rumors are unfounded, etc. it just makes it sound like you actually do have something to hide instead of it being a ridiculous question and concern.

Alternative proposal? Just say he has no relation to the party and pivot to talking about actual policy, like the trade war Trump is starting that will devastate MI among others. By responding to the charges of antisemitism, you validate that it's something people should be talking about, that actually Democrats do have to speak about Hasan at all as if he is part of the party; which he is of course not. If you don't want Democrats to have to talk about him all the time, you can't encourage them to pretend like they must have a position on him. If he has no influence on them, they should just say that. Why is the leader of the Democrats in the house, a separate chamber from AES is even running for, commenting on someone that appeared a few times with him on the campaign trail as if he has influence in the party? You don't think that raises the question of whether

What even happens afterward if AES and every single Democrat disavows him and he becomes known universally as an antisemite who some Democrats once courted? Do you think the right just drops it as a talking point? Of course not. You just get them talking about how AES is also antisemitic for associating with him, or how his judgment is horrible for doing so, or any number of other talking points. You just get the right talking about how they were correct, the Democrats do associate with antisemites and will continue to call him a standard bearer regardless of whether he or Democrats claim he is or not. Or a former standard bearer, or a secret one, or so on. It doesn't make the problem go away if you accept their false framing that he's an antisemite who is important to the party or determining policy or the agenda.

He's not writing legislation, he's not touching any levers of power. Even if you hate him you should still try to understand and reach his audience, regardless of whether he personally is vile or not. That is how democracy and dialog works in a society with people you disagree with. Or do we continue to play only team sports and never try to understand other people who aren't already in your corner? Do you think that might have something to do with the 1/3 of the country who still don't vote?

[Dan Ng @zanthryn]

@MaddiesHotTake @socialistadri Sometimes you need a timeline cleanse. How far she's come.

[Dan Ng @zanthryn]

@cline_collier And? Does the Democrat house leader deciding he needs to weigh in on someone who campaigned with a senate candidate, i.e. not his chamber, remove the association? Could you consider it may tighten the association when it aligns with framing that he has any sway in the party?

[Dan Ng @zanthryn]

@cline_collier Is AES the entire party? Why do people like Jeffries, in the house and NY, have reason to comment? Unless you want to associate him closer to the party as leader. Angie Nixon in Florida is sort of doing as suggested. We'll see how that plays out, I at least know i can be wrong

[Dan Ng @zanthryn]

That's bull and you know it if you're saying condemning Hasan would make him go away. Or if you don't know it, you really don't have a grasp of how media and politics works today.

All it does is validate that it's a real concern, and then he'll instead be asked about his judgment about why he ever stood next to him in the first place, why should anyone trust him if he made a blunder like that, and so on. It's accepting a loaded question, or loaded framing/association.

And it's over something completely inconsequential. Abdul El Sayed isn't using him for policy ideas or strategy, he used him as a means of communicating with the audience he's cultivated.

[Dan Ng @zanthryn]

I've asked a few people this since I genuinely don't know, but haven't yet gotten a response. Could I ask you what, if anything, journalistic ethics have to say about a situation like Hasan's ? Beyond the framing, as a general matter, when is it appropriate or even required for a journalist to ask for comment or response if they are going to cover spend hours covering the words of a person, a political commentator and public figure, who they could easily contact in an instant given the connectivity of today?

It seems strange they deem this important enough to dedicate hours and hours of coverage to this, but never allow a response beyond what any given outlet decides they want to clip or frame?

[Dan Ng @zanthryn]

I would say the substance of your point is obscured by your apparent desire to use flowery and poetic language instead of being precise and clear.

What battles did you fight and win, what are these noxious shoots that apparently escaped your grasp, and why do you simply state your conclusion that your war was lost with no specifics on how you came to that conclusion ? How does working for a single campaign for a few months of an independent who caucuses with democrats relevant to the workings or voters of the party as a whole ?

Is it simply this current discourse on one particular media figure? Because I have a hard time believing that’s the only basis you would have. So why spend so much time talking about who you are and not any on what you actually mean ?

[Dan Ng @zanthryn]

What does democracy and free speech mean to you? You may hate the guy but he speaks to and for a significant group of people. He’s not the cause of most of those people sharing any of his outlooks, he’s just someone who speaks to their concerns. If he is as odious as you claim, it should be a simple matter to convince his actual audience to turn away from him.

Do you think if he gets ejected from public life and discourse that his audience also automatically goes away? Appearing or campaigning with someone is not saying you vouch for the person and claim everything they have and will say going forward for all time, it’s saying you care about the people who they reach. Kamala Harris made that calculation with Liz Cheney, should she be held to answer for everything that she has ever said and will say?

I don’t care about Hasan Piker, I care about the people he represents. Why don’t you?

[Dan Ng @zanthryn]

It’s not “a little criticism”, it’s hours of coverage that is being used to attack candidates all across the country, regardless of whether they ever spoke with him or not. Angie Nixon is having to answer these questions instead of anything that actually matters to governance. Now the ask to condemn him and jettison him from public discourse if not public life, as if the Republican attacks would end there if they followed through.

If you don’t think it would then be used to say how justified they were in constantly calling Abdul El Sayed or Mamdani as antisemitic or foolish because of their past association with him, hurting the chances of stopping the Trump agenda everywhere, I question what understanding you have of American politics. They’re doing it to Mark Ruffalo, and to Miss Rachel, the children’s YouTuber, who have never associated with him. If you don’t hold the line against what you see as unjust smears, what would you do it for ?

When you see something you perceive as injustice do you just go “oh well, doesn’t matter”?

[Dan Ng @zanthryn]

Even if the label you apply to him fit, do you think putting that label on him and walking away is enough? People everywhere do and should hate anti semites. And yet people listen to him. Far more people than you from the numbers I’ve seen. Do you think there’s no work to be done convincing people of your arguments, or do you think stating something you see as fact and walking away is enough ?

Do you do that with MAGA folk? Tell them “Donald Trump is a horrific force in our country”, and then leave it at that? As if the force of your statement and its, to you and I and many people, truth is enough to break through ?

[Dan Ng @zanthryn]

I think you're the one misrepresenting the hypothetical or how it applies to this topic, but I can discuss the difference in POV honestly if you can.

It is not a call to "constantly, emphatically and unequivocally condemn Jihad in all its forms", which by the way is something Zohran Mamdani was asked to do constantly, or Abdul El Sayed, Ilhan Omar, or so on. This is a case where Israel, after launching what a majority of people call a genocide or war crimes at the least, is itself is constantly claiming it does what it does for all Jewish people everywhere. Media is making the claim that the vast majority of Jewish people support Israel, and thereby implicitly their actions. They often don't clarify this is the "emotional connection" question or some other vague phrasing.

This isn't a call in a vacuum to clarify whether they accept a violent regime or not. It's in response to the current, and ongoing claims that actually Jewish people are monolithic or close to it in their support for Israel, whether from the ADL or AIPAC or any Christian politician making the case that they must continue supporting Israel because of their commitment to the Jewish people; folding those overseas in a foreign country in with the concerns of Jewish people within the US borders. If the media and politicians were constantly claiming that Muslims actually have an unbreakable connection to Saudi Arabia due to religion and their holy land of Mecca, should that just be allowed to stand unchallenged? It wouldn't be right for them to do, and it should not fall to random citizens to have to defend themselves just for existing with a particular faith, but the world is only as fair as we make it. We can't count on some cosmic sense of karma or justice to make things right.

If you see it differently, then clarify. Or say where you think this POV is wrong.

[Dan Ng @zanthryn]

Pretty similar to the calculus that the British empire once faced, no? Do you think they should have fought to retain their overseas empire and influence? What’s different between them and the U.S. in that regard ?

And turning to rivals is not a simple process. The arms that they use aren’t just plug and play, put any weapons systems in the hands of another military and they’re good to go. I’m no military expert but by my understanding every time you change aspects of the supply chain, it opens you up to all sorts of extra work you have to do and thereby extra problems that can crop up. And now do you have to juggle two supply chains, some for arms made by the U.S. and some for the others ?

Ukraine for instance has immense needs for arms of all sorts. But NATO can’t just drop off a crate of gear and walk away. The troops need to be trained in their use and maintainance. And they’re built up with NATO cooperation in mind. They couldn’t just suddenly start using Chinese gear with no problems, they’re in a completely different language with different operating principles.

Even things like bullet form factors for particular weapons, or the bombs that jets use. Much of that is American made; is there standardization of how Chinese or Russian made munitions would work in them? Would you expect the F35 to just plug and play munitions from those countries? That one I don’t know, but I suspect not. Maybe someone can tell me that.

[Dan Ng @zanthryn]

What does your conception of how democracy works entail then? Do the elected leaders have a responsibility for transparency over their thoughts and processes, or what can voters demand of them after they are already in office?

Are there any safeguards if such elected leaders have different, competing priorities in their decision? Like suppose over the data center issues, do we simply trust that anyone elected will work for the public good out of principle and leave it at that? Do we just trust “the science” and the advisors thereof since we do not have access to comparable time, resources, experts, etc?

[Dan Ng @zanthryn]

@Bram_R And? Does that make it better that they ignore the wishes of their voters, the people they're supposed to represent? If they want to make the case that they know better, they should make that case openly. What else is democracy for if the citizens cannot have input on policy?

[Dan Ng @zanthryn]

@AJeffery99154 If i say something like "If we don't do something about our CO2 and greenhouse gas production, the climate will change and cause immense harm to people world wide," is that an implicit threat?

[Dan Ng @zanthryn]

Could I ask you what, if anything, journalistic ethics have to say about a situation like this? Beyond the framing, as a general matter, when is it appropriate or even required for a responsible journalist to ask for comment or response? Especially if they are going to cover the words of a person, a political commentator and public figure, who they could easily contact in an instant given the abilities of today? I suppose I don't necessarily expect anything from Fox "News" on ethics, but do other outlets have standards and guidelines for things like this?

It seems strange they deem this important enough to dedicate hours and hours of coverage to this, but never allow a response beyond what any given outlet decides they want to clip or frame? He doesn't have hypnotic powers. Hearing directly from him is not a public danger if presenting him in front of the public over and over is not a danger. So what are the considerations here?

[Dan Ng @zanthryn]

He has agency over what he says, but not what other people say about him. Particularly if they never actually have a back and forth discussion. It’s incredibly easy today for someone to come into a situation, see ideas and words as framed by someone else, and uncritically accept them.

Aren’t we, as a free democracy, supposed to be better, have higher ideals than putting labels on people and then discarding them or falling in line depending on our own personal biases? What happened to free and public discussion of ideas to work toward some approximation of truth and optimal solutions?

You may not agree with things anyone says, but you should at least be able to understand where they are coming from if a significant portion of the population think similarly. It’s not enough to just label someone a pejorative and leave it at that, as if that is enough engagement.

This all ignores that analysis is not justification, just as correlation is not causation. Saying that antisemitism will rise due to the actions of Israel is not saying it’s a good thing, it’s understanding how the public on average will likely react. Just as Islamophobia rose after 9/11, which you could probably similarly predict. Even though Muslims too were virtually all innocent of encouraging it or reasonably involved at all. Would acknowledging that reality make someone an Islamophobe? And if it came with the warning that if Muslims as a group were believed to be associating with or praising the responsible parties will raise that further ? Can you engage with ideas rather than retreat to labels ?

https://t.co/7rpy0aX2IC

[Dan Ng @zanthryn]

Could I ask you what, if anything, journalistic ethics have to say about a situation like this ? Beyond the framing, as a general matter, when is it appropriate or even required for a journalist to ask for comment or response if they are going to cover the words of a person, a political commentator and public figure, who they could easily contact in an instant given the abolities of today?

It seems strange they deem this important enough to dedicate hours and hours of coverage to this, but never allow a response beyond what any given outlet decides they want to clip or frame?