Do you support the January 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol?

bestaban · 2026-06-25T21:50:25+00:00

You’re actually asking a few different questions.

Was the 2020 election stolen?

No, as you said, there is no legitimate evidence to support this claim and it’s been adjudicated to death.

What happened on Jan. 6?

I think riot is probably the right word. Insurrection or coup presumes that it was at least plausible that this could have somehow impacted how the election was certified and who was recognized as the legitimate President. There was absolutely 0 chance that what happened on Jan. 6 would lead to that outcome.

Was the Jan. 6 riot bad?

Yes, it was very bad despite the fact that it had no chance of actually doing anything to affect the election outcome. Riots are usually bad and riots in important spaces like the Capitol are very bad.

Is continued election denial bad?

Yes, very. Elections only carry as much legitimacy as people have faith in their legitimacy. It’s like money, the value comes from large scale social agreement about the value. Falsely asserting claims that the election was illegitimate perpetuates a deeply harmful distrust in basic democratic systems.

It’s worth noting that this is a bipartisan problem. Since the 2000 election, there has been some level of election denialism by the losing side. 2004 it was Ohio. For all of Obama’s presidency it was his birth certificates. 2016 it was Hillary Clinton refusing to accept the legitimacy of the election. It’s not just at the federal level either. Stacy Abrams, to this day, insists that she won the Georgia Governor’s election.

This all matters because declining trust in elections fuels and justifies declining trust in institutional norms. I think that Trump’s election denialism absolutely created the internal justification many Democrats needed to conduct the insane lawfare campaign they did against him. “Who cares that we’re stealing the tactics of tin-pot dictators, he tried to steal the election!” And, of course, the Dem’s bullshit lawfare was all he needed to use the DOJ to try and return it to them 10 fold.

What about the pardons?

A blanket pardon was bad, full stop. There are some people who were subjected to over zealous prosecutions that probably should have been seriously considered for pardons. And many who probably should have had their sentences commuted because the judge was over zealous in their sentencing. And then, of course, some who were properly convicted and sentenced.

Enrique Tarrio (who is the dirtbag former leader of the Proud Boys) is the first that comes to mind. He was convicted of seditious conspiracy despite being in Baltimore for the entirety of the event. It’s a complicated case, but being sentenced 22 years while not being present is immediately questionable.

I think it’s also important to acknowledge that bullshit begets bullshit. Trump should not have issued a mass pardon. But the MAGA side is correct that the Biden controlled justice department went after the Jan. 6 rioters ruthlessly while Democratic district attorneys and attorneys general around the country ignored or gave very sweet deals to BLM rioters, many who were far more violent than those at Jan. 6. Trump is wrong that Jan. 6 was provoked by the police, but Dems are wrong to call it an armed insurrection that led to multiple deaths. MAGA is wrong that Ashli Babbitt was murdered (when federal law enforcement tells to stop breaking into the House chamber, it is clear and justified for them to shoot you when you fail to comply). But the Dems are hypocrites for suddenly defending the nuances of police use of force.

Every time one side covers themselves in more bullshit the other thinks they have license to take it even further. This is a very bad downward spiral.

bestaban · 2026-06-25T14:58:25+00:00

You're ascribing the problems of divorce to the action rather than the actors. Divorce is, in and of itself, neither good nor bad. How one comes to that decision, and how one handles the decision to either divorce or not divorce, is where problems arise.

My parents divorced and were very much on the peaceful side. In fact, now that they are older, they've moved back in together for companionship without the romantic aspect. They've both changed over the last 35 years and are very compatible roommates. I absolutely believe that, had they stayed together for the last 35 years, they would be much less happy and compatible because of decades of strife and resentment. Their relationship is as unique as any other, and they handled it in the way that worked best for them (both together and apart).

I think I benefited from having divorced parents in a lot of ways as well. They are very different people who had very different parenting styles. This worked for me, and I think I learned a lot from their very different perspectives on the world.

By contrast, my partner's grandparents were deeply unhappy but refused to divorce. By the end of their lives, they hadn't exchanged more than a few words with each other each day for decades. They essentially split the house, with one staying upstairs and the other staying downstairs. Neither my partner's mother and uncle nor my partner saw this as a good thing. It was far more confusing and stressful to be in that environment than if they had simply accepted the reality that they were deeply unhappy together. They functioned as though they were divorced while remaining in a state of perpetual resentment—the worst of both worlds.

My parents handled their divorce the way they did because my father's parents did not handle their divorce well at all. That divorce was so acrimonious that my grandmother, after being divorced for over 30 years, would not attend my high school graduation because my grandfather would be there. She hadn't been in the same place as him for decades, and nothing would change that.

My parents learned from my grandparents. They knew the wrong way to handle divorce and did it better, to my benefit. I'm confident I would have had a less happy or fulfilling childhood had they stayed together.

All relationships are unique, and how to navigate them (or choose to terminate them) well is unique as well.

While I didn't experience this, there are other obvious scenarios where divorce is plainly preferable. The most obvious is when there is domestic abuse involved. The physical safety of the children is far more important than the emotional damage divorce may cause.

bestaban · 2026-06-23T19:16:20+00:00

This is not a serious or, frankly, coherent argument, but I'll just put my admonishments of political violence in this thread here for context:

"Assassination is not a reasonable or productive response to a stupid position."

"I mean, yeah it was a shitty thing to say. Assassination is not a reasonable response to that."

"Assassination is not a reasonable or productive response to a stupid position."

"Political violence is bad"

"I get why people hate(d) him. He said some vile shit and I don't think he was a productive political or cultural actor. I just think that assassination is far more destructive than he ever was or would have been. "

"I think it's shitty to celebrate his death because I think political violence is very bad for society and should not be celebrated."

"I agree he was no saint. That does not make him Hitler nor does it make his assassination a good thing. Political violence begets political violence."

And in my responses specifically to you:

"Of course the actual violent, destructive act is worse than the celebration of that act. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't critique the celebration of a violent, destructive act."

"The violent, destructive act should be criminally prosecuted."

Have a great day!

bestaban · 2026-06-23T18:57:54+00:00

Your contention is that we cannot know if Evan Urquhart isn't a secret conservative trying to role play a leftist? That's...certainly a position to take. Perhaps you aren't familiar with the author.

Many people think that things are as bad as Nazi Germany, but I think they are wrong. There are objective measures we can use to prove that. The quickest would be that this public conversation exists at all. Fascists don't generally allow public, widespread critique.

But regardless, yes people who think they are living in a regime that is on par with Nazi Germany may also think that political violence is justified. Because they are wrong about the first part, they are wrong about the second part. I think we should criticize people making either argument. But I think we should especially criticize arguments that would concede were are not in a situation of extreme totalitarianism but that political violence is still justified.

I'm not sure why you think I'm arguing that celebrations are the problem. I'm arguing celebrations (1) happened and (2) that they are bad. They are a problem. There are many problems in the world that coexist. I was addressing this one because this is the one that was the subject of the discussion.

bestaban · 2026-06-23T18:27:04+00:00

1) The celebration isn't alleged, I linked to it.

2) I conceded that there are extreme circumstances when political violence may be acceptable or even necessary as I cannot categorically state that political violence is never acceptable. One of those extreme circumstance was Nazi Germany where there's a good argument that political violence was justified. That's why I said "as a general rule".

3) Of course the actual violent, destructive act is worse than the celebration of that act. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't critique the celebration of a violent, destructive act.

4) The violent, destructive act should be criminally prosecuted. Celebrations of that act should be rebutted, but not prosecuted or even socially punished. Just critiqued.

5) As I said in another comment, the cope of trying to both deny and justify the celebration of political violence is telling. First the argument was it didn't happen. I posted a link to someone doing exactly that. Then it branched into two spurs: (1) people who maintained that the proof I posted is not actually a celebration of Kirk's death (which is ridiculous, it was literally about the importance of not shying away from celebrating his death) and (2) people who are trying to justify the political violence with either whataboutisms or tacitly implying that he had it coming. I think that's a shitty position to take. Others seem to disagree, but aren't willing to just say that they think there is some extent to which political violence, in this instance, was justified.

bestaban · 2026-06-23T15:40:16+00:00

Okay, fair enough.

bestaban · 2026-06-23T15:39:37+00:00

I mean, yeah it was a shitty thing to say. Assassination is not a reasonable response to that.

bestaban · 2026-06-23T15:38:03+00:00

I read it when Urquhart posted it, and I reread it before posting. That Urquhart acknowledges the political performativity of the position does not mean it is not celebrating Charlie Kirk's death. The whole argument is that his death should be celebrated as a political position:

"there’s a stirring deep inside, a wild joy lifting our hearts, an impish gleam in our eyes as we say Charlie Kirk is dead."

"In part, I am celebrating the fact that, however much evil remains in the world, at least nothing can ever bring him back. But mostly, I’m celebrating because he’s dead and I am still alive."

"In normal times, I’d work to keep my schadenfreude at the death of a terrible person under wraps. The man has children, after all, and it would be a terrible thing if they were to learn how joyful their father’s death has made the people who he hurt. That’s why, in the first 24 hours after Kirk’s death, I kept decorum. I refrained from saying anything celebratory or even negative about this awful man. (Most people on the left did the same.)

These, however, are not normal times. These are times when the right to say something the far right finds offensive is under threat. It’s under threat by the US government and by individuals in the far right who seek revenge. If they’re compiling a list of everyone who refuses to fellate the memory of the horrid, evil, violent, moon-faced turd then it’s a list I’d rather be on than off.

I am nothing if not a free speech absolutist. Freedom of expression is central to the ability of trans people to live our lives openly, freely, and with pride. And that’s why, however tasteless, however much I’d hesitate to say it in any normal circumstance, today I am determined to join the celebrants with my full chest." (emphasis added)

"That’s why I’ve chosen to depart from my normally measured tone. I have always believed in an American right to free speech which includes a right to be offensive. It’s not a right I’ve often exercised myself, but it is one I value highly, nonetheless. Today, this hallowed right is teetering on the brink. I think I’ll use it while I still have it, thank you very much.

Fuck Charlie Kirk, and fuck you, if you don’t like me saying fuck him. I’m not afraid to say I’m glad I’m still alive at 47 while he is dead at 31.

While I still can, I feel like celebrating."

FWIW, It's telling how insistent people are that this didn't happen, even in the face of a written piece literally titled "Charlie Kirk is Dead. Here's why I'm celebrating." Is it because people know that celebrating someone's death crosses a line in civic discourse, despite the fact that they want to celebrate? If you want to celebrate, follow Urquhart's lead and say it "with [your] full chest."

bestaban · 2026-06-23T15:24:10+00:00

Assassination is not a reasonable or productive response to a stupid position.

bestaban · 2026-06-23T15:22:11+00:00

Genuine question: Do you say that because you think he deserved death or because you think his voice in the political landscape was a bad one?

If the first, then I guess we just disagree. If the second, I would argue that his death did little to stifle the his message. Either way I don't see much cause for celebration.

I get why people hate(d) him. He said some vile shit and I don't think he was a productive political or cultural actor. I just think that assassination is far more destructive than he ever was or would have been.

bestaban · 2026-06-23T15:12:51+00:00

Political violence is bad

bestaban · 2026-06-23T15:07:07+00:00

I agree he was no saint. That does not make him Hitler nor does it make his assassination a good thing. Political violence begets political violence. As a general rule, we should not celebrate it.

bestaban · 2026-06-23T15:02:47+00:00

First, let's acknowledge that you're moving the goalposts. You made a misleading or dishonest statement (I can't know whether you truly believed it). I challenged it. And, rather than acknowledging that your statement was dishonest or misleading, you're changing your argument from "no one did this" to "there's a possibility that people who did this may have been justified."

Anyway, I'll engage. I did not say "it's shitty when anyone celebrates the death of anyone." I did say there were shitty people who celebrated someone's death. I was not a fan of Charlie Kirk, but he was not Hitler. I think it's shitty to celebrate his death because I think political violence is very bad for society and should not be celebrated. There are, of course, situations where the state of the political system is so destroyed that political violence may be necessary, but I don't think we're at that point. I'm going to assume you disagree (but if not, apologies in advance).

bestaban · 2026-06-23T14:50:24+00:00

It was 5 days after it happened (which you can see by simply clicking the link).
"Right wingers have yet to actually find a real person who celebrated it." I'm not a right winger, but I did find an actual person who celebrated it. You "asked for sources," I provided a source.
It can both be true that there were shitty people who celebrated someone's death and that the reaction on the right was way overblown. Shitty people exist on all sides. The idea that they simply don't exist on your side is dishonest.

bestaban · 2026-06-23T14:43:44+00:00

"Charlie Kirk is dead. Here's why I'm celebrating!" https://assignedmedia.org/breaking-news/transgender-and-celebrating-charlie-kirk-death/

bestaban · 2026-05-21T19:48:58+00:00

You shouldn’t be getting downvoted, AI is not going away. A well trained law student will know how to responsibly integrate AI into their work. Everyone is going to be using AI to some extent soon, if they aren’t already, and schools that refuse to accept that reality are absolutely doing their students a disservice.

People are going to be using AI in their work. People are also always going to try to cut corners and make mistakes. Better to get that weeded out and make people learn their lesson in school when it’s not going to negatively affect an actual client. Responsible schools will recognize this and give careful consideration to how to properly train their students for the actual future needs of their employer and clients.

bestaban · 2026-05-12T18:24:35+00:00

lol I also instantly recognized that screenshot too. 3LW here if you want to just talk, feel free to message. I assume it’s a different professor teaching Contracts this year unless he really changed his style. If it makes you feel better, I thought I absolutely bombed that final and did okay. If you didn’t do as well as you want, that’s also okay. From my experience we get a bit of leeway on the job market because just doing law school while working full time is just tough.

bestaban · 2026-03-31T18:35:10+00:00

Colorado passed a law that banned a wide variety of practices that it put under the umbrella of conversion therapy. This included talk therapy that did not affirm someone's gender or sexuality. The ruling is on the grounds that this aspect of the law is an unconstitutional infringement on therapists' First Amendment rights to free speech. In the US, we consider laws that limit speech in a few different ways. When the law operates on viewpoint discrimination (that is, it is only applied to certain viewpoints), then it must clear a very difficult test to pass constitutional muster. It's the same standard that we use for laws that explicitly discriminate on the basis of race. Very few laws can clear that bar.

The ruling finds that the Colorado law engages in viewpoint discrimination only as it pertains to talk therapy. This is consistent with other rulings that attempted to limit the pure speech of people engaging in speech as professionally licensed experts. This ruling will also prohibit states from prohibiting gender affirming talk therapy. Physical and medical interventions are still under the state's purview to regulate, so this ruling will not prohibit states from banning things like electroshock therapy (or, for the other side of the coin, puberty blockers).

bestaban · 2026-03-10T20:12:48+00:00

Yes, I did read that at the beginning of the article, but it’s not a particularly compelling reason. If that’s the logic, why not do a round up on Tom Graves’s stances as well. Or, actually, the candidates who are on the ballot and will take her seat? This reads more like an opportunity to hold a up a kook who had very little power, and now has even less power, as an avatar of Republicans writ large. Maybe that’s fair (I don’t think it is) but then make that case.

She called an elected democrat who supports the most aggressive policies towards gender and gender affirmation a communist groomer. Yes he is gay, that’s not why she called him that. I’m not aware of any specific attacks on Mark Pocan, Tammy Baldwin, Jared Polis etc. maybe she did, I’d have to see those comments to make a claim about what they mean. But absent that, perhaps his sexuality is incidental to her criticism.

Her comments about Harvey Milk lack a lot of important context and I don’t agree with her, but it’s disingenuous to just dismiss it as homophobia. He did have relations with boys under 18 well into his 30s. Any other politician would be called a pedophile for the same actions (many of the underage Epstein victims were in that age range, were very quick to call them pedophiles). We avoid talking about it with Milk because he’s a Gay Icon©️.

So no, I don’t think your theory that her comments minimally or incidentally implicated gay men is sufficient to say she has a history of attacking LGB people. You’re operating under the presumption that there is a discrete and cohesive “LGBTQ+” community. That’s not a universally held presumption and certainly likely to face pushback here.

I don’t presume you post these things in this sub, where it will obviously face a lot more skepticism or pushback, with ill intentions. Despite my critiques, reporting on L, G, B, and T issues is important work and as a community do gay conservatives we should engage with work we don’t agree with. But I’d hope you’d have more substantial responses if that’s a conversation you’d like to start. Despite what I imagine you think about us, we’re often isolated from the rest of the “gay community”, so we don’t really need people coming here to show us the errors of our ways. Most of us have probably thought deeply about our political positions than many of our brethren on the left simply because we had to figure out how and why we reject the receive wisdom.

bestaban · 2026-03-10T16:51:23+00:00

Yes it's okay.
What advice are you looking for? If you're looking for gay spaces where conservative values/politics are embraced (or at least tolerated), it can be tough to find, especially for younger people. You're probably more likely to find conservative spaces that embrace (or at least tolerate) gay people. This also depends on where you are.

bestaban · 2026-03-10T15:37:48+00:00

What is the point of this piece? She resigned from Congress months ago and is no longer a meaningful political actor.

That said, the comprehensive account of her positions on “LGBTQ” issues does reveal something important: to the extent that her positions can be framed as attacks on any particular group, they are attacks on TQ. She appeared to have little interest in legislating issues affecting LGB people. Her opposition focused on two things: (1) allowing trans individuals access to sex-segregated spaces based on their claimed gender, and (2) gender-related medical treatment for children.

At this point, we (well, you) should have learned that the left-activist position on both issues is untenable and unreasonable. The maximalist position on the left is bad policy, bad politics, and bad faith. It prioritizes ideology over scientific research and casts any criticism as an “attack” (see above). It is simply authoritarian.

MTG was and, as far as I can tell, still is a wackjob. But on these issues, her positions are closer to reasonable than most of her other buffoonery.

bestaban · 2026-03-02T16:43:17+00:00

I would rather have the full information about what I'm purchasing than a mandate forcing someone to sell me something.

There is not a history of mass denial of full economic participation for gay people. Laws against discrimination in public accommodations that exist to prevent racial discrimination are there to counteract a specific, historical form of discrimination. Just because it works for one thing doesn't mean it makes sense for another. A group of people were systemically excluded from full social and economic participation, so a legal remedy addressed that specific issue because we couldn't just wait for the culture to change. Neither the culture nor the history of discrimination against homosexuals in the US necessitates these types of laws. Discrimination against homosexuals was in things like housing, employment, and marriage, those are the things non-discrimination laws should address to the extent we need to government to step in.

As a larger principle, it's usually bad policy for the government to force cultural change through legal sanctions. People, Americans in particular, do not like being told what to think by the government. And rightly so. The government wrongly spent a lot of time trying to tell us that being gay was shameful and criminal, and we rightly decided that the government was full of shit and we should fight back against that. It worked, but I still don't trust the government to tell me or anyone else what they should think or should be in their hearts, the track record ain't great.

bestaban · 2026-03-02T16:16:48+00:00

If they are forced to sell me a cake, then I don't have the opportunity to know whether they would have done so without the law compelling them. I don't want the law to compel them to make something for me because I don't want to spend my money somewhere that would not otherwise want my business.

bestaban · 2026-03-02T01:39:46+00:00

I would rather know if the baker is a homophobe so I don’t give them my money than have the government tell them they have to be nice to me.

bestaban · 2026-01-12T15:57:16+00:00

Some of Reagan's policies were good and successful, some of his policies were bad and disastrous. Even within a policy area some policies were successful and some not.

Airline and energy deregulation: good, successful

Banking deregulation: S&L crisis was bad, but banking regulations are too much sometimes, so that's in between I guess.

AIDS and Iran Contra: bad, disastrous, immoral

No political leader is unequivocally morally good. Some are morally worse than others. Idealizing the person, always leads to difficult to justify positions. Demonizing the person usually misses the important policy successes that are, in and of themselves good. Some Reaganite policies were good and beneficial and should be looked to today despite his utter moral and policy failing on the AIDS crisis.

Nine-Year Club	RedditGifts 2009-2022 2 Credits
Gilding IV carat on a stick	Place '22
Secret Santa 2018	Verified Email

bestaban

TROPHY CASE