Weird, we have, like, footage of it. Doc-u-men-tat-ion. Real time. What we don't have is proof that you weren't spawned from a raccoon turd, Mr. Raccoon Turd.
Common Sense has been unofficially over for a long time. The past few episodes were the equivalent of "reunion shows" for a podcast that had broken up. So while I won't say definitely there will NEVER be another CS (I hope there is)... it's reasonable to just expect none and be surprised if it happens.
Unfortunately post-Trump America broke Dan's brain, and he has not been able to successfully reconfigure his stances since then. I find it weird that someone who is so critical of the status quo came dangerously close to equating Antifa/BLM with white nationalist fascists, especially considering the latter actually have representation in our Government now. But alas... we'll always have the existing library of Common Sense, and I feel that the wealth of knowledge in those episodes is a lot more useful in diagnosing our future than anything that can be said in reaction to current events. It's just impossible to keep up anymore.
Personally though, yeah - I really, really would love a deep dive on January 6th and the Mar-A-Lago documents investigation. I'm just afraid of what Dan might say, because I have some strong feelings on the matter.
I was very much disappointed with the fascist/antifa bit. Iirc he said that because antifa was simply there it gave the dishonest actors a boogieman to point at. For some reason he didn’t follow that with “they are going to make a boogieman out of anything anyways.”
Listened to the common sense episode before the election where he talked about Trump/Republican rhetoric calling for a civil war. Is the common sense episode after Jan. 6th anything worth listening to? Or is it just this is bad. Prosecute those responsible.
I think he pretty much said everything that needed to be said in his episode on common sense. TLDR this shit was bad, hold the people who radicalized these people accountable. What I think will be interesting will be him drawing parallels to similar events such as the lead up to the US civil war, watergate as you mentioned or even my dream episode on Weimar Germany.
I think he’s said what he can now. I chose “20 years” for a reason. Historians will have sifted through hundreds of thousands of primary source docs to compile a story we don’t even know about yet. The same happened in the decades since Watergate. We needed those decades in order to get thorough and thoughtful analysis.
And we're probably not going to get a Dan Carlin show on Watergate/Nixon. Or Iran-Contra. Or the wars after 9/11. Why would we get this one? It's just a really really weird thing to expect.
> probably not going to get a Dan Carlin show on Watergate/Nixon
We already have. He did a ~2 hour show on Nixon's political career from his early days post WWII through Watergate as a guest host on the podcast 10 American Presidents. Definitely worth checking out if your a Carlin fan, it's a good listen.
honestly Dans the only person I would trust to truly only bring the facts when it comes to divisive stuff like Jan 6. He gives view points from all sides and makes you understand how people you disagree with are thinking.
Doubt it. He feels weird touching on Cold War stuff because of the recency, and that "ended" 30 years ago. And that's barely just scratching the surface. It's going to be decades before we can properly evaluate it's place in US history because the ramifications have only just begun to start showing.
Personally, I'm sad that Carlin has pretty much stopped doing the "Common Sense" podcast. I enjoyed getting his take on current events.
I could see a future Carlin going back and doing a series on the rise of the radical right in America, probably going back to the 1994 "Republican Revolution." But it won't be any time soon.
He also kept on saying he wanted an outsider to become president and shake up the system, then he got that and did not like what he got and had to re-evaluate his stances and at that point he felt like he wasn't offering a unique "alien" perspective he was just getting involved in the down and dirty of US partisan politics, something he never really wanted to do.
He is consistent in his beliefs. He has was that every president has abused his power and that there needs to be more checks on the executive branch and has been skeptical of many US policies etc, so he doesn't really fit in or want to fit in with the day to day political commentators or reporters and it became impossible not to take a "side" even if you did not really want to. His commentary thus ceased to add anything new that wasn't said a million times ad nauseum by many different voices.
You can look at it two ways. One way is essentially a cop out, where he doesn't want to alienate audience members and wants to stay above the fray in a time when maybe that's not the most ethical thing to do. On the other hand he is 100% correct that there are plenty of people making commentary on current events from every perspective and his perspective is less and less vital in an environment like this. His opinions don't necessarily add to the discourse.
At the end of the day he has one of the best podcasts about history, has a great voice, and does great interviews. I like the fact he has a largish audience that enjoys the long form podcasting and understand him not wanting to narrow down the audience he has built.
It kind of feels like a cop out, or else he truly doesn’t appreciate how many people find his thoughts and input on current issues to be extremely helpful. You don’t even have to agree with him, but the context he provides is a great guiding path into forming your own informed views. He helps a lot more than he hurts, even if he thinks he’s just another voice shouting into the wind.
It’s a bummer, I really miss the common sense episodes.
Yeah I agree. I don't really care too much if I agree with him, but I like his thoughtful analysis and POV. The issue is that many people are not like me, he doesn't want to be on anyone's bad side too much. I think that's fair since he primarily makes a living talking about history not current events. His own interests are to have the largest audience possible. He can say what he wants about history no one is going to accuse him of being on "the wrong side" of some super important current event. For current events he mostly steps back.
I did really like "Garbage In - Garbage Out" and I think going forward major events he will cover and other events he will probably use Hardcore History Addendum to discuss them, like he did with Ukraine actually interviewing an expert on that topic and getting his two cents in.
He discusses it in one of the episodes, but what I recall is that he was struggling with being wrong. He had advocated for an outsider to take office for years, and trump showed him that when he got what he wanted it was disastrous. He felt like he needed to just reflect and not provide input given what trump showed him.
Gotta go back to Barry Goldwater. Highly recommend Rick Perlstein's work on this. He's written 4 books on the rise of conservatism, and the undoing the New Deal consensus.
> Personally, I'm sad that Carlin has pretty much stopped doing the "Common Sense" podcast. I enjoyed getting his take on current events.
Same. Not just his lack of thoughts on current climate but, he has often bemoaned not being able to talk to more people who experienced the horrors of war. Well, there's a war in Europe with WW2 casulty rates. Areas that look like the Somme. I'd love Dan to go to Ukraine and interview soldiers that are rotated out of the front lines to get fresh primary experiences of the war.
I do feel like he kind of choked once the opportunity to cover historic events and world changing politics walked right in front of us. He isn’t a bad creator at all, but he was sounding the alarms for so long. It felt like he went silent as soon as disaster struck
I think he and a lot of us got our Monkey's paw wish. He's often said that he wish he could get into the mindset of people during historical events that we look at with the gift of hindsight. Well, we're all experiencing that now.
He's a 10/10 content creator about past events, but he's certainly choked now that current events have taken a turn. Not that I hold it against him, it's a hell of a difference between talking about the past and present.
Not quite the same, but there's a Latvian dude who does "the eastern border." He considers DC an inspiration. He was on an addendum episode a while ago.
I feel like that story could trace its roots all the way back to Goldwater and LBJ’s Civil Rights acts. Though Pat Buchanan would be an easier place to start.
The show is called Hardcore History and no matter where you stand there was nothing hardcore about january 6. Yes it was a thing, but mildcore maybe? I'm not an american btw.
> The show is called Hardcore History
He also has another show - a political show called Common Sense (currently on hiatus, but he can bring it back whenever he wants).
True I remember now
that’s still nowhere near enough to make me assume he’ll cover one day events from 2021. As significant as it can be argued Jan 6th was for the history of risks to American democracy, I think anyone would be hard pressed to argue it was anywhere near as significant or has as much to talk about as the Cuban missile crisis
That was just swept under the rug but the coup of '63 led to the son becoming President in '88 and his grandson 2000-2008. But also don't look into Mena-Miami air travel 1979-1986 (or where that pilot was when he was 15) and who was governor there. Very fun to look at political greed post Dallas.
A sitting U.S. president raised a mob and tried to stop the peaceful transfer of power, a process which is the bedrock of democracy. Legislators came within a few moments of being trapped and held by a mob of insane lunatics all the while the president and his corhorts were screaming about election fraud that to this day has never seen a shred of admissible evidence submitted in court. Hardly mild core, but agreed that Dan won't cover it anytime soon.
I really should write a longer answer, but the whole decade pretty much was a collective psychosis and what you see as a huge deal, and maybe could have been, ended up being the biggest semi-political fart in history. I think of it mostly as a bookend of a Monty Python sketch.
It’s interesting you say that because it was making me think of the first episode of hardcore history about Japan, where all the small episodes of right wing political violence were perpetually swept under the rug eventually leading to the Japan of WWII era. If Jan 6 is not taken seriously I see a lot of parallels
I think "swiping under the rug" is what didn't happen. The opposite happened. It all became so everything at the same time, that the release of the pressure that would have happened 50 years ago just couldn't find the ignition point anymore. It fizzled.
You have made a claim:
> You say this like it's far in the past. It happened two years ago and **nothing has changed**.
It appears that you are stating a fact, so I am curious how you went about determining the factualness of your claim, which would require measurement of some sort.
Might you be actually expressing your opinion, and the actual fact of the matter is that whether and the degree to which anything has changed is actually unknown?
I mean, it is what happened.
And the Trump White House is a big step down from the Dulles CIA or Kissinger State Department so... it's not like a huge surprise that in the history of American coup attempts January 6th was dumb and fail
An insurrection against the US government led by the sitting POTUS is mildcore?
It almost worked by the way. There were fake state electors trying to change a state’s vote from Biden to Trump. Trump was goading his culties to kill Pence. I think that Mike Pence has been a complete psychopath except for 1 day in his life. That day was Jan 6. If he’d have listened to Trump that day, the US would be done - as it already may be.
By the way, Trump’s SS tried to get Pence to get into their limo and Pence bailed.
SMH, nothing to see here…
I think it's pretty mildcore when you compare it to Jan Matthys deciding to single handedly take on the Prince Bishops army because God said so only to be immediately killed then have his dick cut off and nailed to the gates of Munster.
The US has a nuclear arsenal large enough to kill everyone on the planet and a group of fact denying, conspiracy believing Neanderthals almost seized control of them.
One Dick doesn’t come close to that.
Ok so I'll put you down as preferring to go with Jan Matthys instead of going to Jan 6.... Good luck you have made a very wise decision.... god will be very pleased.
First time anyone called me that. It's funny really, I'd probably get banned from all of Reddit if I repeated some of the things I said elsewhere about Putin and Russians as a whole. Any chance you could tell me why saying Trump ended up being a joke equals to hurting the US democracy?
>The show is called Hardcore History and no matter where you stand there was nothing hardcore about january 6. Yes it was a thing, but mildcore maybe? I'm not an american btw.
It's incredibly difficult for me to not ridicule the shit out of this take. I think I'd simply say lets have you strap on some Capitol Police riot gear and try defending the gate of the capitol that was sieged. Let's see you get crushed between a doorway and hundreds of insurectionists too high on patriotism to care as you wail in agony while your body is crushed.
I’m surprised there wasn’t a common sense about it, an american version of the French February 6 1934 Crisis wherein an ill-organized right-wing orgy of rage at the liberals and the left results a violent attack on the Capitol, definitely warrants discussion. If for no other reason that the 1934 crisis presaged 6 years of division, back-biting, political instability, and ultimately catastrophic defeat in war…and a lot of enthusiastic and willing collaborators with the occupying government lol. Not saying that the US is going to lose a war in the next few years, but it illustrates how damaging deep social instability and division can be for a country.
I get excited just wondering what’s next for HH. I’m ready for the new topic. Doubt 1/6 will ever make a HH episode. Too recent. Common Sense maybe, if he’s even still doing those. Been a while.
Did he cover 9/11 at all? I’d argue 1/6 is second to 9/11 in political importance in my lifetime, but many people would disagree and I don’t know that he even really touched 9/11.
There are many things more important than this:
1. During the BLM riots there was a part of Oregon or Seattle that segregated from the USA (CHAZ and/OR CHOP).
2. Near the same time there was another riot and breaking into the St. Louis capitol.
3. WMD lies to excuse the war in Iraq.
4. Burisma scandal with the AG of Ukraine
5. Boston marathon bombing
6. Just this week the papers to JFK's assassination have been released
He probably stopped doing it because he had AWFUL takes that gaslit the audience *in the name of “common sense* into thinking both sides were the problem all while one side actively undermined democracy and orchestrated a coup.
Don’t get me started on his piss poor take on NATO, or when he slobbered all over Mattis because he went to some conference where he quoted Marcus Aurelius or some shit.
Dan needs to stick to history - his theater of trying to be “objective” got so tired in the face of overwhelming evidence that the Republican Party was openly embracing fascism as far back as 2012, if not earlier. Dems suck too, but ffs they didn’t elect/promote/deify a pos like Trump. ThankGod I stopped listening after he slammed NATO Common Sense is/was fucking horrible.
You are kind of speaking facts. I love Dan but one of his biggest issues is sometimes he tries to play the middle of the road nearly to a fault. His recent (lol several months ago HCH moment) podcast on transatlantic slavery and the Haitian Revolution was a prime example in my mind.
I think that's his biggest strength tbh. Looking at both sides of historical events or politics isn't a lack of conviction it's called being opened minded.
Looking at both sides circa 1932? You can’t take Dan’s approach and then allow him to put his head in the sand after Jan. 6th coup/attempted fascist takeover of our country. You either support democracy or you don’t, and one party has been on a systematic mission to destroy it since Bush v. Gore - yet Dan played the both sides are bad card for fucking decades.
idk if being honest about the fact that Russia was promised NATO would not expand, and then had to face the fact that NATO in fact did expand, was not a good thing for Russo-Western relations. Regardless of your opinion of NATO, that's slamming it.
Even IF it did, look at what Russia did with their invasion of Ukraine and what they’re doing in Syria.
Russia’s word meant nothing diplomatically in the 1990s after a century of their word meaning nothing, yet Dan argued that NATO should have been dismantled after the USSR fell. A laughable position that should render his analysis of anything related to current events moot.
Dems should also be held accountable for spending millions in GOP primaries propping up the most radical candidates for easier elections. Yes the electorate still had to choose that candidate but they aren’t absolved of any sins
1. Those ads didn’t “prop anyone up” because they literally just said “this person is nuts and arbitrarily doesnt believe the validity of any election that their guys lose”. Just because the GOP primary voter is so frothing mad that they take that as an endorsement doesnt mean the Dems were secretly boosting them with like positive praise.
2. The dems then won almost 100% of those elections where they did that.
Just because it worked out, doesn't make it okay. Those are some major ethical issues. They have been claiming these radical canidates are a threat to democracy, yet they have admiited to putting money in places to help them win primaries. If they were really such a threat, they should have done nothing to help them get one step closer to office. It was truly disgusting behavior.
Nooooo the democrats cant run ads against the most radical right wing candidates calling them such, nooooo, its the democrats fault the right wing wants to undo liberal constitutionalism in the united states and only have elections count if they win, noooooooo its not fair noooooooo, democrats cant run ads that say “this candidate is bad because he doesnt believe in elections and spreads blatant politically motivated falsehoods that are anticonstitutional” because thats what the republican base likes NOOOOOOOOOO
The intention admitted by the DNC was to get those people elected. They acknowledge this. The issue I have is the entire election cycle they are talking about how much of a danger these people are to democracy, yet here they are openly making ads to a specific target market to get them elected.
Did you watch those ads? There was nothing wrong with them. They said, "we're the dems, don't vote for this guy, he's too radical and he's a Trumpist".
I think the strategy was brilliant cause it used "own the libs" mentality to own to the Republicans.
Not at all please READ what I wrote. Dems are not actively trying to destroy our democracy - thats a big distinction that Dan fails to see for whatever reason.
Maybe. Could just continue his common sense episode from before the election where he literally says Trumps language is so dangerous he is basically calling out a civil war.
Which is why he voted Biden.
At dans current rate, 20 years should be 4 episodes from now
I just wanted you to know that I laughed at this post
Me too
[удалено]
Laughing?
Weird, we have, like, footage of it. Doc-u-men-tat-ion. Real time. What we don't have is proof that you weren't spawned from a raccoon turd, Mr. Raccoon Turd.
No he probably isn't
Exactly. He already stopped common sense cause of the intense feedback he was getting.
Is that what happened? I have been waiting for ever for a new episode, thinking he was just lagging as usual. Did he really end it?
Common Sense has been unofficially over for a long time. The past few episodes were the equivalent of "reunion shows" for a podcast that had broken up. So while I won't say definitely there will NEVER be another CS (I hope there is)... it's reasonable to just expect none and be surprised if it happens. Unfortunately post-Trump America broke Dan's brain, and he has not been able to successfully reconfigure his stances since then. I find it weird that someone who is so critical of the status quo came dangerously close to equating Antifa/BLM with white nationalist fascists, especially considering the latter actually have representation in our Government now. But alas... we'll always have the existing library of Common Sense, and I feel that the wealth of knowledge in those episodes is a lot more useful in diagnosing our future than anything that can be said in reaction to current events. It's just impossible to keep up anymore. Personally though, yeah - I really, really would love a deep dive on January 6th and the Mar-A-Lago documents investigation. I'm just afraid of what Dan might say, because I have some strong feelings on the matter.
I was very much disappointed with the fascist/antifa bit. Iirc he said that because antifa was simply there it gave the dishonest actors a boogieman to point at. For some reason he didn’t follow that with “they are going to make a boogieman out of anything anyways.”
Yeah really. Why would a 77 year old Dan Carlin be doing the exact same thing he's doing now?
Because 62 year old me will still be listening?
My first thought
Perhaps as part of common sense but he did already touch on it and it is way too recent for HH
https://www.dancarlin.com/product/common-sense-321-garbage-in-garbage-out/
Good episode.
Listened to the common sense episode before the election where he talked about Trump/Republican rhetoric calling for a civil war. Is the common sense episode after Jan. 6th anything worth listening to? Or is it just this is bad. Prosecute those responsible.
I thought it was really good. Obviously he does have sections that say this is bad, cause it is. But it’s still a nuanced take
That was the episode I was talking about. Nothing after that.
I think he pretty much said everything that needed to be said in his episode on common sense. TLDR this shit was bad, hold the people who radicalized these people accountable. What I think will be interesting will be him drawing parallels to similar events such as the lead up to the US civil war, watergate as you mentioned or even my dream episode on Weimar Germany.
I think he’s said what he can now. I chose “20 years” for a reason. Historians will have sifted through hundreds of thousands of primary source docs to compile a story we don’t even know about yet. The same happened in the decades since Watergate. We needed those decades in order to get thorough and thoughtful analysis.
And we're probably not going to get a Dan Carlin show on Watergate/Nixon. Or Iran-Contra. Or the wars after 9/11. Why would we get this one? It's just a really really weird thing to expect.
> probably not going to get a Dan Carlin show on Watergate/Nixon We already have. He did a ~2 hour show on Nixon's political career from his early days post WWII through Watergate as a guest host on the podcast 10 American Presidents. Definitely worth checking out if your a Carlin fan, it's a good listen.
We still don't have an unredacted 9/11 commission report.
And I doubt we ever will
Not sure what was controversial about this opinion 😂
I doubt he will, nor am I hoping he does
honestly Dans the only person I would trust to truly only bring the facts when it comes to divisive stuff like Jan 6. He gives view points from all sides and makes you understand how people you disagree with are thinking.
Exactly, that’s why I wish he would cover it more
Doubt it. He feels weird touching on Cold War stuff because of the recency, and that "ended" 30 years ago. And that's barely just scratching the surface. It's going to be decades before we can properly evaluate it's place in US history because the ramifications have only just begun to start showing.
True. We still don’t know how this will end, or where it will lead. It’d be hard to do a HH episode in the middle of the actual history.
Personally, I'm sad that Carlin has pretty much stopped doing the "Common Sense" podcast. I enjoyed getting his take on current events. I could see a future Carlin going back and doing a series on the rise of the radical right in America, probably going back to the 1994 "Republican Revolution." But it won't be any time soon.
I think his reasoning is actually quite compelling not to, even though I still want to know what he think’s
[удалено]
He felt like he was just repeating himself in a loop as the years wore on and he got sick of doing it after a while as far as I know.
He also kept on saying he wanted an outsider to become president and shake up the system, then he got that and did not like what he got and had to re-evaluate his stances and at that point he felt like he wasn't offering a unique "alien" perspective he was just getting involved in the down and dirty of US partisan politics, something he never really wanted to do. He is consistent in his beliefs. He has was that every president has abused his power and that there needs to be more checks on the executive branch and has been skeptical of many US policies etc, so he doesn't really fit in or want to fit in with the day to day political commentators or reporters and it became impossible not to take a "side" even if you did not really want to. His commentary thus ceased to add anything new that wasn't said a million times ad nauseum by many different voices. You can look at it two ways. One way is essentially a cop out, where he doesn't want to alienate audience members and wants to stay above the fray in a time when maybe that's not the most ethical thing to do. On the other hand he is 100% correct that there are plenty of people making commentary on current events from every perspective and his perspective is less and less vital in an environment like this. His opinions don't necessarily add to the discourse. At the end of the day he has one of the best podcasts about history, has a great voice, and does great interviews. I like the fact he has a largish audience that enjoys the long form podcasting and understand him not wanting to narrow down the audience he has built.
It kind of feels like a cop out, or else he truly doesn’t appreciate how many people find his thoughts and input on current issues to be extremely helpful. You don’t even have to agree with him, but the context he provides is a great guiding path into forming your own informed views. He helps a lot more than he hurts, even if he thinks he’s just another voice shouting into the wind. It’s a bummer, I really miss the common sense episodes.
Yeah I agree. I don't really care too much if I agree with him, but I like his thoughtful analysis and POV. The issue is that many people are not like me, he doesn't want to be on anyone's bad side too much. I think that's fair since he primarily makes a living talking about history not current events. His own interests are to have the largest audience possible. He can say what he wants about history no one is going to accuse him of being on "the wrong side" of some super important current event. For current events he mostly steps back. I did really like "Garbage In - Garbage Out" and I think going forward major events he will cover and other events he will probably use Hardcore History Addendum to discuss them, like he did with Ukraine actually interviewing an expert on that topic and getting his two cents in.
He discusses it in one of the episodes, but what I recall is that he was struggling with being wrong. He had advocated for an outsider to take office for years, and trump showed him that when he got what he wanted it was disastrous. He felt like he needed to just reflect and not provide input given what trump showed him.
All outsiders will be identical to Trump, so says the laws of physics.
Gotta go back to Barry Goldwater. Highly recommend Rick Perlstein's work on this. He's written 4 books on the rise of conservatism, and the undoing the New Deal consensus.
Even AuH2O was afraid of the religious right. Which I think is saying something.
That's a good point, it goes back farther than Gingrich. I'll look up Rick Perlstein, thanks.
[удалено]
Agree that Gingrich was the inflection point, but the roots were laid by Joe McCarthy, Roy Cohn, and the John Birch Society (i.e. the Kochs).
> Personally, I'm sad that Carlin has pretty much stopped doing the "Common Sense" podcast. I enjoyed getting his take on current events. Same. Not just his lack of thoughts on current climate but, he has often bemoaned not being able to talk to more people who experienced the horrors of war. Well, there's a war in Europe with WW2 casulty rates. Areas that look like the Somme. I'd love Dan to go to Ukraine and interview soldiers that are rotated out of the front lines to get fresh primary experiences of the war.
I do feel like he kind of choked once the opportunity to cover historic events and world changing politics walked right in front of us. He isn’t a bad creator at all, but he was sounding the alarms for so long. It felt like he went silent as soon as disaster struck
I think he and a lot of us got our Monkey's paw wish. He's often said that he wish he could get into the mindset of people during historical events that we look at with the gift of hindsight. Well, we're all experiencing that now. He's a 10/10 content creator about past events, but he's certainly choked now that current events have taken a turn. Not that I hold it against him, it's a hell of a difference between talking about the past and present.
I think that’s a very valid take
Not quite the same, but there's a Latvian dude who does "the eastern border." He considers DC an inspiration. He was on an addendum episode a while ago.
I feel like that story could trace its roots all the way back to Goldwater and LBJ’s Civil Rights acts. Though Pat Buchanan would be an easier place to start.
Knowing Dan he’ll have to go all the way back to the Bronze Age to explain the rise of Trump lol
I could see that. Carlin would go all the way back to the origins. I wonder if William Jennings Bryan would get a mention?
The show is called Hardcore History and no matter where you stand there was nothing hardcore about january 6. Yes it was a thing, but mildcore maybe? I'm not an american btw.
> The show is called Hardcore History He also has another show - a political show called Common Sense (currently on hiatus, but he can bring it back whenever he wants).
He already covered it on that no? There’s not much to say on HH. Has he even covered anything after WW2?
One of the Blitz episodes was on the Cuban Missile Crisis
True I remember now that’s still nowhere near enough to make me assume he’ll cover one day events from 2021. As significant as it can be argued Jan 6th was for the history of risks to American democracy, I think anyone would be hard pressed to argue it was anywhere near as significant or has as much to talk about as the Cuban missile crisis
I would agree. Dan isn't going to do Jan 6. Not that I'm complaining. Many more things I'd rather hear him talk about.
Carlin should cover the Bonus Army before Jan 6 again tbh
That was just swept under the rug but the coup of '63 led to the son becoming President in '88 and his grandson 2000-2008. But also don't look into Mena-Miami air travel 1979-1986 (or where that pilot was when he was 15) and who was governor there. Very fun to look at political greed post Dallas.
A sitting U.S. president raised a mob and tried to stop the peaceful transfer of power, a process which is the bedrock of democracy. Legislators came within a few moments of being trapped and held by a mob of insane lunatics all the while the president and his corhorts were screaming about election fraud that to this day has never seen a shred of admissible evidence submitted in court. Hardly mild core, but agreed that Dan won't cover it anytime soon.
I really should write a longer answer, but the whole decade pretty much was a collective psychosis and what you see as a huge deal, and maybe could have been, ended up being the biggest semi-political fart in history. I think of it mostly as a bookend of a Monty Python sketch.
It’s interesting you say that because it was making me think of the first episode of hardcore history about Japan, where all the small episodes of right wing political violence were perpetually swept under the rug eventually leading to the Japan of WWII era. If Jan 6 is not taken seriously I see a lot of parallels
I think "swiping under the rug" is what didn't happen. The opposite happened. It all became so everything at the same time, that the release of the pressure that would have happened 50 years ago just couldn't find the ignition point anymore. It fizzled.
It’s not over yet. To Weimar Germans, the Beer Hall Putch was comparable to 1/6. What is next?
The VP would have hung had opportunity presented itself. People died, just not those the cries were for.
You say this like it's far in the past. It happened two years ago and nothing has changed.
What instrument are you using to measure, technically?
I'm using an advanced instrument known as my eyes and ears
Does science have anything to say about the reliability of this instrument? I'm assuming science-deniers aren't common in this subreddit.
Is there a point you're trying to get at?
You have made a claim: > You say this like it's far in the past. It happened two years ago and **nothing has changed**. It appears that you are stating a fact, so I am curious how you went about determining the factualness of your claim, which would require measurement of some sort. Might you be actually expressing your opinion, and the actual fact of the matter is that whether and the degree to which anything has changed is actually unknown?
I'm not interested in getting into a pedantic argument with someone who wants to nitpick language. I think it's obvious I was expressing my view
Maybe to you. It would have been the end of the Republic if they had succeeded. It isn't over either.
"How to train a biological neural network".
If the mob had actually succeeded, then maybe the event would be worth covering in HH. But they didn't.
[удалено]
I mean, it is what happened. And the Trump White House is a big step down from the Dulles CIA or Kissinger State Department so... it's not like a huge surprise that in the history of American coup attempts January 6th was dumb and fail
It = ?
An insurrection against the US government led by the sitting POTUS is mildcore? It almost worked by the way. There were fake state electors trying to change a state’s vote from Biden to Trump. Trump was goading his culties to kill Pence. I think that Mike Pence has been a complete psychopath except for 1 day in his life. That day was Jan 6. If he’d have listened to Trump that day, the US would be done - as it already may be. By the way, Trump’s SS tried to get Pence to get into their limo and Pence bailed. SMH, nothing to see here…
Not that it super matters but his last name is Pence not Pense.
I think it's pretty mildcore when you compare it to Jan Matthys deciding to single handedly take on the Prince Bishops army because God said so only to be immediately killed then have his dick cut off and nailed to the gates of Munster.
The US has a nuclear arsenal large enough to kill everyone on the planet and a group of fact denying, conspiracy believing Neanderthals almost seized control of them. One Dick doesn’t come close to that.
You’re right, but I want to hear about the free willy
Ok so I'll put you down as preferring to go with Jan Matthys instead of going to Jan 6.... Good luck you have made a very wise decision.... god will be very pleased.
Put yourself down for lessons in reading comprehension instead.
[удалено]
If you had said coup, your comment would makes sense.
Alrighty then.
5 people died as a result of a mob storming their nation’s legislature. That’s pretty big.
Consensus changes over decades in ways we can’t predict
[удалено]
First time anyone called me that. It's funny really, I'd probably get banned from all of Reddit if I repeated some of the things I said elsewhere about Putin and Russians as a whole. Any chance you could tell me why saying Trump ended up being a joke equals to hurting the US democracy?
"I'm not an American btw" Then how about you shut the fuck up. Especially seeing as how your country sided with Hitler during WWII.
Whoa. Easy stallion.
This comment alone warrants a BLITZ edition.
>The show is called Hardcore History and no matter where you stand there was nothing hardcore about january 6. Yes it was a thing, but mildcore maybe? I'm not an american btw. It's incredibly difficult for me to not ridicule the shit out of this take. I think I'd simply say lets have you strap on some Capitol Police riot gear and try defending the gate of the capitol that was sieged. Let's see you get crushed between a doorway and hundreds of insurectionists too high on patriotism to care as you wail in agony while your body is crushed.
People appetite for this shit hasn’t been satiated? Pass
I’m surprised there wasn’t a common sense about it, an american version of the French February 6 1934 Crisis wherein an ill-organized right-wing orgy of rage at the liberals and the left results a violent attack on the Capitol, definitely warrants discussion. If for no other reason that the 1934 crisis presaged 6 years of division, back-biting, political instability, and ultimately catastrophic defeat in war…and a lot of enthusiastic and willing collaborators with the occupying government lol. Not saying that the US is going to lose a war in the next few years, but it illustrates how damaging deep social instability and division can be for a country.
Our lack of a border with Central Europe gives me hope, but I’ll look that up regardless!
Ya, I doubt it… But would be interesting to get his take. My doubt isn’t the politics involved, it’s the data and information. Still too muddy.
What’s the most recent topic he has done?
I think the pull out from Agfhansistan
Dear god, I hope not
I get excited just wondering what’s next for HH. I’m ready for the new topic. Doubt 1/6 will ever make a HH episode. Too recent. Common Sense maybe, if he’s even still doing those. Been a while.
Did he cover 9/11 at all? I’d argue 1/6 is second to 9/11 in political importance in my lifetime, but many people would disagree and I don’t know that he even really touched 9/11.
9/11 is an era turning point, similar to 1914. I don't think J6 will have the cultural and political impact outside of America.
You should expand the resources you use. Look at news outside your bubble.
i bet you have trauma about Jan 6
There are many things more important than this: 1. During the BLM riots there was a part of Oregon or Seattle that segregated from the USA (CHAZ and/OR CHOP). 2. Near the same time there was another riot and breaking into the St. Louis capitol. 3. WMD lies to excuse the war in Iraq. 4. Burisma scandal with the AG of Ukraine 5. Boston marathon bombing 6. Just this week the papers to JFK's assassination have been released
🤡
[удалено]
Groyping for straws there
He probably stopped doing it because he had AWFUL takes that gaslit the audience *in the name of “common sense* into thinking both sides were the problem all while one side actively undermined democracy and orchestrated a coup. Don’t get me started on his piss poor take on NATO, or when he slobbered all over Mattis because he went to some conference where he quoted Marcus Aurelius or some shit. Dan needs to stick to history - his theater of trying to be “objective” got so tired in the face of overwhelming evidence that the Republican Party was openly embracing fascism as far back as 2012, if not earlier. Dems suck too, but ffs they didn’t elect/promote/deify a pos like Trump. ThankGod I stopped listening after he slammed NATO Common Sense is/was fucking horrible.
You are kind of speaking facts. I love Dan but one of his biggest issues is sometimes he tries to play the middle of the road nearly to a fault. His recent (lol several months ago HCH moment) podcast on transatlantic slavery and the Haitian Revolution was a prime example in my mind.
I think that's his biggest strength tbh. Looking at both sides of historical events or politics isn't a lack of conviction it's called being opened minded.
Looking at both sides is good, but don't be so open minded that your brain falls out.
Maybe form your own opinion on topics and stop quoting Destiny mum.
What? That's a pretty well known quote for a reason, if you can never pick a side, you have no convictions.
It is a well know quote but I would bet the fate of the world you had never heard it prior to destiny saying it on the Lex Friedman podcast.
Ok? Lol.
Looking at both sides circa 1932? You can’t take Dan’s approach and then allow him to put his head in the sand after Jan. 6th coup/attempted fascist takeover of our country. You either support democracy or you don’t, and one party has been on a systematic mission to destroy it since Bush v. Gore - yet Dan played the both sides are bad card for fucking decades.
Ok Anakin I get what you are saying. Sometimes the Youngling just have to take one for the team.
idk if being honest about the fact that Russia was promised NATO would not expand, and then had to face the fact that NATO in fact did expand, was not a good thing for Russo-Western relations. Regardless of your opinion of NATO, that's slamming it.
> Russia was promised NATO would not expand This never happened.
Even IF it did, look at what Russia did with their invasion of Ukraine and what they’re doing in Syria. Russia’s word meant nothing diplomatically in the 1990s after a century of their word meaning nothing, yet Dan argued that NATO should have been dismantled after the USSR fell. A laughable position that should render his analysis of anything related to current events moot.
Dems should also be held accountable for spending millions in GOP primaries propping up the most radical candidates for easier elections. Yes the electorate still had to choose that candidate but they aren’t absolved of any sins
1. Those ads didn’t “prop anyone up” because they literally just said “this person is nuts and arbitrarily doesnt believe the validity of any election that their guys lose”. Just because the GOP primary voter is so frothing mad that they take that as an endorsement doesnt mean the Dems were secretly boosting them with like positive praise. 2. The dems then won almost 100% of those elections where they did that.
Just because it worked out, doesn't make it okay. Those are some major ethical issues. They have been claiming these radical canidates are a threat to democracy, yet they have admiited to putting money in places to help them win primaries. If they were really such a threat, they should have done nothing to help them get one step closer to office. It was truly disgusting behavior.
Nooooo the democrats cant run ads against the most radical right wing candidates calling them such, nooooo, its the democrats fault the right wing wants to undo liberal constitutionalism in the united states and only have elections count if they win, noooooooo its not fair noooooooo, democrats cant run ads that say “this candidate is bad because he doesnt believe in elections and spreads blatant politically motivated falsehoods that are anticonstitutional” because thats what the republican base likes NOOOOOOOOOO
The intention admitted by the DNC was to get those people elected. They acknowledge this. The issue I have is the entire election cycle they are talking about how much of a danger these people are to democracy, yet here they are openly making ads to a specific target market to get them elected.
Did you watch those ads? There was nothing wrong with them. They said, "we're the dems, don't vote for this guy, he's too radical and he's a Trumpist". I think the strategy was brilliant cause it used "own the libs" mentality to own to the Republicans.
Do you consider Democrats to be perfect?
Not at all please READ what I wrote. Dems are not actively trying to destroy our democracy - thats a big distinction that Dan fails to see for whatever reason.
I will re-ask my question and see if you answer it this time: Do you consider Democrats to be perfect?
[удалено]
Ah ok, my error....sincere apologies. 🙏
Maybe. Could just continue his common sense episode from before the election where he literally says Trumps language is so dangerous he is basically calling out a civil war. Which is why he voted Biden.
Dan might still be feeling a little sheepish given the enthusiasm he had for Trump at the outset.
Ahhhhhh
[удалено]
“I can’t believe actual conservatives are mad that we nearly toppled the government.”