I admit, I'm not saying anything particularly original, but once I thought of the title, I felt like I had to use it.

A couple of related things that I've seen, I think David Roberts is correct about the difference between right wing and left wing message machines.

All day today I have been having the vertiginously weird experience of trying to convince Democrats that the fact that the RW has a giant, coordinated messaging machine & they don't *matters*. To no effect! I can't even get people to acknowledge & discuss it.

And yet every single Dem, from center to left, is eager AF to discuss "messaging" & "framing." They'll all spend hours lingering over various word combinations, poring over focus group results, convince that just the right phrase is the key to the kingdom. Argh.

Which connects to the OP in that the nature of the nutpicking years is not only that people are saying crazy things, but that important political institutions (primarily on the right) have also been saying crazy things.

They question is, why did institutions decide that decorum was no longer valuable?

Air America radio... now there's a name I haven't heard in years.

Nick- They never decided decorum wasn't valuable. You might not be aware of the unwritten definition though.

Punching down is always permissible. Punching up is never permissible.

"Nutpicking" really doesn't seem like the correct lens when you have most of the stuff coming from the president.

Right; I was going for the idea that what would have been called nutpicking is just reading the news these days.

I guess Standpipe's visit has affected me.

I realize that I was conflating two things in "decorum." The first is some sense of politeness and respect and the second is some concept of public reason -- of respecting what sorts of arguments are reasonable to make. As an example of why institutions might choose to be cautious on the latter element is illustrated in this story.

Some senior lawyers at Jones Day, one of the country's largest law firms, are worried that it is advancing arguments that lack evidence and may be helping Mr. Trump and his allies undermine the integrity of American elections, according to interviews with nine partners and associates, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to protect their jobs.

Technically institutions don't chose things. A lot of people say that Chief Justice Roberts is cautious out of a desire to protect the institution of the Supreme Court. I wouldn't be surprised if he were a no vote for the coup. I am curious if he would be as protective if he weren't Chief though.

I was partly thinking of this tweet: https://twitter.com/jonrog1/status/1325965224264962048?s=20 John Rodgers saying:"Throw Mattison there, everyone constrained by decorum which exists only to be wielded like a cudgel." The occasion being Senator Manchin promising to protect the filibuster.

Decorum must be preserved because it serves the power structure. The fact that it is binding on Democrats and not Republicans is part of the point. Democrats are necessarily second class citizens.

John Holbo today: https://mobile.twitter.com/jholbo1/status/1326365186220040192

This is kind of an interesting fallacy. Normally nut-picking is, itself a fallacy. But, when the other side floods the nut zone, you get in a different situation, tactically: they can't nut-pick ALL our nuts. Too many of us are nuts! Some of our nuts will go unpicked!

If one side is flooding the nut-zone, then you're no longer cherrypicking nutty comments. You're accurately responding to what they're saying.

Anything that veers into territory of making amends with Republicans is revolting to me.

Yes, to me as well. I know this is petty, but I'm going to have see a bunch of them publicly eat a LOT of shit first. I expect we're just going to die enemies instead.

Yes. And if Covid keeps raging where it is, a lot of them I know are going to die sooner than I am. Unless my blood pressure does me in.

Yeah, in general no matter where the virus goes, and no matter how low the population of ethnic minorities and immigrants, they have tended to be the ones to get sick and die, but North Dakota and Idaho are going to test that to the limit.

But, when the other side floods the nut zone

Are we not doing phrasing any more?

So what are some ways to disrupt or otherwise protest a semi-elite university's online conversation event with a former Trump collaborator who shouldn't be treated this cozily, no matter how stern the book he wrote after the fact?

Ignore it because anything else is putting money in his pocket increased book sales. Figure out who allowed or invited the event and shun them.

15: all I can think of is to put a brief message in your screen name (after you join?), turn on video and hold up a sign, or paste advocacy org URLs into the group chat. And ask pointed questions. I wonder if there's a version of "I actually have a question for the moderator: what made you think this was a good idea?" that would work and not just shut down discourse completely.

Or ask the distinguished guest, "How do you think elite universities are complicit with the abuses you participated in? What can a place like this do to put roadblocks in the way of the next bunch of goons who take the path you took?" You'd at least get a mildly unpredictable reply.

Or just run some counterprogramming and advertise it to alumni listservs and so on.

I guess my school is small enough I could give all the management an earful by phone.

If you've donated, just stop.

Or, switch to support for specific programs that had nothing to do with this.

I haven't donated in years.

Streaking is a great way to be disruptive. Everybody remembers streaking.

Not recommended for a Zoom-based event, though, because people take it a different way.

Further information: this is a Zoom webinar, so it's unlikely they will allow audience video, probably not even audio, just typed questions.

By all means, type in a question. It's low effort, but somebody else controls the forum so you shouldn't expect much.

On topic because Zoom and nuts: Jeffrey Toobin got fired by the New Yorker, but he graciously is allowed to read the cartoons as long as he doesn't participate in the caption contest.

I actually used the official Four Seasons Landscaping zoom background for a meeting on Tuesday; and, as I was giving a virtual performance to a voluntary group in the evening, ended by turning the laptop to face the cat. I think the strain is beginning to get to me.

15: Ask them what they think about the concept of Schreibtischtäter.