Well written as always, Isaac. Really appreciate you. Quick question - what do you think of Twitter and Facebook cutting off the President? Admittedly, I'm selfishly happy that they muzzled him but something about it feels counter to the foundational freedoms of our country. This is more of a philosophical question as I know that Twitter/Facebook are within their rights to censor. If I found out Jeffrey Dahmer didn't get a fair trial, I wouldn't obviously care - but shouldn't Jeffrey Dahmer get a fair trial? Thoughts?
Hey Joe! Thanks for the kind words. Re: Twitter & Facebook, I've actually touched on this a bit before. Generally speaking, I oppose it. I do not think it's a free speech issue -- FB and Twitter are private companies enforcing their policies and they are free to do what they want. But I do think it's counterproductive in the long-term. I think if you want to stop what happened this week we need to have less siloed information, less people moving off of "mainstream" social platforms into places like 4chan, Parler, etc. I think we got what we got in part because these people left Twitter/FB and moved to smaller, niche, extremists platforms where their ideas were radicalized and reinforced. It's a really, really difficult question, though.
This was a very eloquently worded piece! Tangle team, I am very thankful for the time you take to deliver such enjoyable and provocative newsletter. It is often a highlight of my day. Keep up the great work!
I woke at 3 am to check my inbox, but it wasn’t there yet!
Thank you for the succinct article timelining the events clearly. There have been gaps in media reports and your article made sense of it all ( as nonsensical as the events were...)
Such division here in Australia over what happened. It’s so exhausting. Feeling for you all over there.
It is the arsonists blaming the fire. When liberals are caught doing something bad, their immediate response is to accuse conservatives of doing that same thing. They call this "getting ahead of the story" and it is surely happening right here.
Hi Shawn - I've been following Isaac for a while now. He's extensively covered claims of voter fraud. He's written about it over and over again for the past few months and keeps up with ongoing legal developments related to claims. His consistent take is that the presented claims are not founded in fact and do not hold up to legal scrutiny.
In the clip above, Rep Gaetz is repeated many of the same claims that Isaac has already addressed in previous newsletters. Perhaps you can start with this one.
Further - Isaac directly addresses Rep Gaetz in the very newsletter we're commenting on:
"Many have claimed the violent rioters were actually “undercover antifa” there to make them look bad, with exhibit A being the man who breached the House chamber dressed as a Viking. In fact, that man is a diehard Trump supporter who has been profiled repeatedly in national news outlets. Even Andy Ngo, the pro-Trump, right-wing reporter who spent the last two years following antifa all over the world, pushed back on these conspiracies."
"That didn’t stop Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) from baselessly making the claim on the House floor"
I know that, Colby. Ike looked and found nothing. I trust him, but hey, he did work for HuffPo once. If there were really nothing to see, they would allow us all to look instead of just shutting us down as they have done. It is clear that they are hiding something. And if those Trump supporting people in DC had been Antifa or BLM, the Capitol would still be burning in "mostly peaceful" protest.
Hey Shawn - like I said via email, I don't really find Gaetz to be a reliable narrator of events. Re: antifa and election fraud, he has repeatedly made demonstrably false claims, citing everything from statistical anomalies to signed affidavits written by people who confused voter registration numbers with eligible voters. I don't actually think Gaetz thinks this stuff is real — I think his political ambitions are tied to Trump.
As for Alex, he's an interesting guy. I enjoyed his book on marijuana legalization a lot. He seems to be a one-trick pony on COVID, though, almost as bad as the fear mongers but the polar opposite. I think he's a good balance to the "shut down" everything crowd but I've seen him consistently leaving out context or representing studies in ways the authors have pushed back on that make me question his interest in spreading truth.
All I ask, Isaac, is that you apply the same standard of credibility to Gaetz and Berenson that you applied to David Becker last month when you made Tangle his soapbox. And I do not merely ask: I demand that. Where someone stands on the political spectrum must not be a litmus test for credibility, lest we fall into an echo chamber of groupspeak.
Well written as always, Isaac. Really appreciate you. Quick question - what do you think of Twitter and Facebook cutting off the President? Admittedly, I'm selfishly happy that they muzzled him but something about it feels counter to the foundational freedoms of our country. This is more of a philosophical question as I know that Twitter/Facebook are within their rights to censor. If I found out Jeffrey Dahmer didn't get a fair trial, I wouldn't obviously care - but shouldn't Jeffrey Dahmer get a fair trial? Thoughts?
Hey Joe! Thanks for the kind words. Re: Twitter & Facebook, I've actually touched on this a bit before. Generally speaking, I oppose it. I do not think it's a free speech issue -- FB and Twitter are private companies enforcing their policies and they are free to do what they want. But I do think it's counterproductive in the long-term. I think if you want to stop what happened this week we need to have less siloed information, less people moving off of "mainstream" social platforms into places like 4chan, Parler, etc. I think we got what we got in part because these people left Twitter/FB and moved to smaller, niche, extremists platforms where their ideas were radicalized and reinforced. It's a really, really difficult question, though.
This was a very eloquently worded piece! Tangle team, I am very thankful for the time you take to deliver such enjoyable and provocative newsletter. It is often a highlight of my day. Keep up the great work!
Great commentary, Isaac. Thank you. You brilliantly summarized the events and tragic implications of the day.
I woke at 3 am to check my inbox, but it wasn’t there yet!
Thank you for the succinct article timelining the events clearly. There have been gaps in media reports and your article made sense of it all ( as nonsensical as the events were...)
Such division here in Australia over what happened. It’s so exhausting. Feeling for you all over there.
Well said, Isaac. Now may I have 10 minutes from you? I yield 5 of them to Matt Gaetz:
https://youtu.be/P_oLX4WWFyQ
and the other 5 to journalist Alex Berenson, who won't need but one. Do, however, read the comments and note who posted them.
https://mobile.twitter.com/AlexBerenson/status/1347217287296778240.
It is the arsonists blaming the fire. When liberals are caught doing something bad, their immediate response is to accuse conservatives of doing that same thing. They call this "getting ahead of the story" and it is surely happening right here.
Hi Shawn - I've been following Isaac for a while now. He's extensively covered claims of voter fraud. He's written about it over and over again for the past few months and keeps up with ongoing legal developments related to claims. His consistent take is that the presented claims are not founded in fact and do not hold up to legal scrutiny.
In the clip above, Rep Gaetz is repeated many of the same claims that Isaac has already addressed in previous newsletters. Perhaps you can start with this one.
https://tangle.substack.com/p/election-fraud-claims-debunked-donald-trump
Further - Isaac directly addresses Rep Gaetz in the very newsletter we're commenting on:
"Many have claimed the violent rioters were actually “undercover antifa” there to make them look bad, with exhibit A being the man who breached the House chamber dressed as a Viking. In fact, that man is a diehard Trump supporter who has been profiled repeatedly in national news outlets. Even Andy Ngo, the pro-Trump, right-wing reporter who spent the last two years following antifa all over the world, pushed back on these conspiracies."
"That didn’t stop Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) from baselessly making the claim on the House floor"
https://twitter.com/oneunderscore__/status/1346950118835064836
https://twitter.com/NoahCRothman/status/1347021174333648897
Those seem to be the two primary points that Rep Gaetz hits on. Is there something else I'm missing?
I know that, Colby. Ike looked and found nothing. I trust him, but hey, he did work for HuffPo once. If there were really nothing to see, they would allow us all to look instead of just shutting us down as they have done. It is clear that they are hiding something. And if those Trump supporting people in DC had been Antifa or BLM, the Capitol would still be burning in "mostly peaceful" protest.
Hey Shawn - like I said via email, I don't really find Gaetz to be a reliable narrator of events. Re: antifa and election fraud, he has repeatedly made demonstrably false claims, citing everything from statistical anomalies to signed affidavits written by people who confused voter registration numbers with eligible voters. I don't actually think Gaetz thinks this stuff is real — I think his political ambitions are tied to Trump.
As for Alex, he's an interesting guy. I enjoyed his book on marijuana legalization a lot. He seems to be a one-trick pony on COVID, though, almost as bad as the fear mongers but the polar opposite. I think he's a good balance to the "shut down" everything crowd but I've seen him consistently leaving out context or representing studies in ways the authors have pushed back on that make me question his interest in spreading truth.
All I ask, Isaac, is that you apply the same standard of credibility to Gaetz and Berenson that you applied to David Becker last month when you made Tangle his soapbox. And I do not merely ask: I demand that. Where someone stands on the political spectrum must not be a litmus test for credibility, lest we fall into an echo chamber of groupspeak.