So he's a coward as well as a shit. Perfectly happy to troll behind the scenes as part of some meme army, but isn't confident enough to stand by his batshit convictions publicly (unlike his girlfriend). If there's a path to choose that you'd be ashamed to reveal because it would negatively effect the perception of your company, maybe don't walk down it.
To paraphrase NimbleRichMan, if he were exposed as evil, reasonable people would no longer want to do business with him, limiting his income, and in turn limiting his ability to continue doing evil in the future.
That said, his public endorsement of Johnson likely wasn't so much a cover for his support of the alt right their champion, Trump, but rather a simple effort to funnel more votes away from Clinton. Most people won't hear anything more than he gave some money to some sketchy Trump supporters, but he really supports Johnson. Hearing a "smart" guy like Luckey is voting third party will embolden anyone who'd "also" been considering some sort of protest vote but were still voting Clinton over concerns about the possibility of a Trump presidency; hearing Palmer is voting Johnson will help alleviate those fear for some. It doesn't matter if it's not true. All that matters is some people will hear and believe it, and they're getting precisely what they deserve, amirite, Palmer?? /sigh
Maybe this is pedantic, but racism is a political belief. It's one that shouldn't be tolerated but manages to be a core concept to a lot of political parties. If the goal of saying it is not is to separate it as a thing we can attack, that's unnecessary. You can accept the Nazis were a political party and still not accept their message and call for their dismantling. It's a little dangerous, to me, to pretend things like racism and sexism are over there on the sidelines and not part of politics.
Rather than legitimizing racism, misogyny and other forms of bigotry as mere political positions, I would instead argue that such anti-social views
implicitly disqualify one from commenting on things like civilization and how it should be managed.
At best, bigots deserve marginalization, though given their anti-social beliefs, ostracism seems more appropriate. Personally, I try to employ shunning as much as possible. Admittedly, shunning isn't terrifically effective when it seems like I'm the only one doing it, but I do what I can.
Same except this part:
I don't see any indication of this being true.
NRM mentioned they had a third, "silent" partner.
Trump, as bad as he is, turned to Breitbart as a last resort. He didn't become involved with them until he had exhausted every other reasonable (and fairly unreasonable) option, from crawling back to the Koch Brothers to getting in bed with pro-Putin Russian political strategists. He tried to court the establishment. He tried to pose as a good Christian to pull in the religious right. He even tried to attract the fiscal revolutionaries spurned by Bernie's failure. There's a case to be made that even he, dullard and demagogue that he is, wouldn't have turned to the alt-right if he had literally any other option. We're talking about a man who was slow to disavow David Duke, and he still didn't hook up with this group until his campaign was in an epic rout and he had run out of other snake-oil salesmen promising him a turn-around.
That's the quality of people that Luckey has chosen, actively and without prompting, to make himself the "proud" patron of. The sort of people that even Trump would have rather not associated with, given a choice.
I dunno about that. Trump
opened his campaign with, "Mexicans are rapists," and all the parts of his campaign which aren't focused on what a miserable country America is are focused on that central argument that The Others are the greatest impediment to our success, and must be dealt with swiftly and forcefully; we'll just team up with Russia again.
Btw, the boycott is to show public disapproval for those types of actions.
Yup. You're entitled to think whatever you want, but the rest of us are under no obligation to continue associating with you once we find out what it is.
The distressing thing about this election cycle is that poor behaviour is being normalized. For example Trump suffers little blowback from gaffs that would have easily torpedoed other candidates. For comparison, Romney's 2012 campaign was dealt a death blow with his 47% remark, and Howard Dean lost his chance at the 2004 Democratic nomination just because he screamed too energetically in a microphone. This reaction is at least setting some base standard for some people about what is acceptable.
Jay Rosen, a journalism professor at NYU, wrote a very interesting piece on this phenomenon,
"Asymmetry between the major parties fries the circuits of the mainstream press." The whole thing is worth reading, but in a nutshell, the right's systematic assault on knowledge and reason has eliminated the possibility of reasoned debate. This is by design, of course, and the shitposting campaigns Palmer is funding are similarly designed to drown out any possibility of actual
discourse. A couple of passages from a book he cites,
Its Even Worse Than It Looks by Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein, frame the issue nicely:
The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition. When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the countrys challenges.
We understand the values of mainstream journalists, including the effort to report both sides of a story. But a balanced treatment of an unbalanced phenomenon distorts reality. If the political dynamics of Washington are unlikely to change anytime soon, at least we should change the way that reality is portrayed to the public.
The argument is that the Fourth Estate are failing their responsibility to the public by presenting these invalid and fallacious arguments as mere differences of opinion, and Rosen makes a pretty strong case. A couple of more excerpts:
The Trump campaign breaks this practice. If Donald Trump calls NBCs Lester Holt a Democrat (in fact hes a registered Republican) and attacks him as part of an unfair system, Trumps campaign manager, Kellyanne Conway, is later free to say that Holt is a respected, brilliant newsman who will do a great job as moderator of the first debate. An on-the-ball journalist can ask: hey, which is it? But thats a practice with a premise. The premise is that a presidential campaign wants to put out a consistent message to avoid confusing people, and to deny journalists a gotcha moment. What if that premise is false? The rationale for interviewing the campaign manager, the running mate, or some other surrogate collapses. They say one thing, the candidate says something else and the confusion is not considered a problem.
When I say hes trying to break the press, I mean the entire system that gives honest journalism a role in the republic. Trump is running against such basic notions as:
- we need a fact-based debate or there cant be consent of the governed;
- theres a public record that cannot just be wiped away;
- a candidates position on major issues should be made clear to the voters;
- lying cannot become a universal principle in politics without major damage to our democracy.
Not only is he running against such fundamentals, the continuity of which is assumed by all forms of campaign coverage, but journalists are the ones who understand best his assault on these basic principles. Theyre living it every day. Of course, hes running against them, too.
If you have no chance of winning an argument, then maybe you can win by turning it in to a fight instead. That's the logic of the anti-social element that has taken over the right wing of this country. The right has been waging a systematic war on our basic mechanisms of civilization education, journalism, government, communication itself
and they've been making a lot of headway with those efforts. So here we are.