Amazon's Alexa Telling Users That 2020 Election Was Rigged(themessenger.com)
themessenger.com
Amazon's Alexa Telling Users That 2020 Election Was Rigged
https://themessenger.com/news/ai-alert-alexa-tells-users-2020-election-was-rigged-report
83 comments
Or maybe our masters to be could put a little more effort into what goes into their black boxes instead of counting their future fortunes.
You can't blame algorithms, you can blame those writing and using them.
Humans at Amazon decided to add such a feature to Alexa, somebody else implemented it and somebody decided to use crap data, so you can blame somebody.
Humans at Amazon decided to add such a feature to Alexa, somebody else implemented it and somebody decided to use crap data, so you can blame somebody.
> It will the result of informed, enlightened and passionate people banging about the cause for as long as it takes.
The interesting part is that people that post bullshit online often believe that they are "informed, enlightened and passionate people banging about the cause for as long as it takes".
The interesting part is that people that post bullshit online often believe that they are "informed, enlightened and passionate people banging about the cause for as long as it takes".
A sane algorithm would at least say there are different answers depending on who you ask.
Why can't I blame algorithms? These are heuristics that often misinform people. In my view someone, maybe Biden or the DNC or the FEC or the people asking Alexa, should have a claim to sue Amazon for something like defamation. Amazon has a reckless disregard for the truth and publishes lies through Alexa. (Assuming all this is true, no opinion on that).
If Amazon gets sued enough they'll either make their service better or discontinue it.
If Amazon gets sued enough they'll either make their service better or discontinue it.
Sounds like you support blaming the creators / users of algorithms, not the algorithms themselves?
Even if the best solution were to make these types of algorithms & code illegal, it still wouldn't exactly be "blaming" the algorithms - the same as when people call for gun control they're still blaming the shooters of guns for the actual crimes committed, not the guns, but banning the guns is seen (by gun control advocates) as a way of preventing those bad actors from doing what they'd otherwise do.
Even if the best solution were to make these types of algorithms & code illegal, it still wouldn't exactly be "blaming" the algorithms - the same as when people call for gun control they're still blaming the shooters of guns for the actual crimes committed, not the guns, but banning the guns is seen (by gun control advocates) as a way of preventing those bad actors from doing what they'd otherwise do.
Sounds like the post also uses it in those terms: not the set of weights that make up this particular NN, but rather the whole system around it. I infer that from
> People will get the digital society they deserve
Algorithms don't create digital societies, other people do, and they use these algorithms to create them on the cheap.
> People will get the digital society they deserve
Algorithms don't create digital societies, other people do, and they use these algorithms to create them on the cheap.
[deleted]
I think it's a two steps process: you first realize that there's an issue with the algorithm. Then, since it doesn't make sense to give a fine to an algorithm, you held the creators and/or users responsible (depending on the specific case).
> These are heuristics that often misinform people
Algorithms don't misinform people, people choose to use algorithms beyond what is deemed acceptable or safe (where these are moving, socially defined attributes).
There is nothing new here. A person can misinform other people using linear regression. The old saying "lies, damn lies and statistics" captures precisely that reality.
We can't escape the difficult debates. Our societies produce alot of information and keeps producing more. How that is processed, dissemniated and acted upon is a vital question and imho people haven't quite woken up to this new reality.
Algorithms don't misinform people, people choose to use algorithms beyond what is deemed acceptable or safe (where these are moving, socially defined attributes).
There is nothing new here. A person can misinform other people using linear regression. The old saying "lies, damn lies and statistics" captures precisely that reality.
We can't escape the difficult debates. Our societies produce alot of information and keeps producing more. How that is processed, dissemniated and acted upon is a vital question and imho people haven't quite woken up to this new reality.
https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/
Maybe the large amount of links to this article fed into that. When I searched for this article the first page of results was pointing to lots of sites that pointed to it; in fact I couldn't find the time.com URL directly....
Maybe the large amount of links to this article fed into that. When I searched for this article the first page of results was pointing to lots of sites that pointed to it; in fact I couldn't find the time.com URL directly....
AI offers improved civility for polarizing online conversations
Another heading on the front page of hacker news right now...
Another heading on the front page of hacker news right now...
How can the FCC not regulate this?
As hinky as pretty much everything else governments do sure seems to be, do we really think the results of more FCC regulation will be pleasing?
Because the FCC has to respect the first amendment
Then why does the FCC limit speech on air and in movies? Sounds like bs to me.
The government doesn't guarantee you a platform for your speech. In the US, you have the right to free speech in general, but there are specific carveouts.
For example, I can say here on HN "fuckity shitting fuck shit" and not be fined or imprisoned. But try saying it to a judge during a trial, and the outcome will likely be different.
And it's the same for saying it on broadcast television at certain times of day and in certain contexts.
For example, I can say here on HN "fuckity shitting fuck shit" and not be fined or imprisoned. But try saying it to a judge during a trial, and the outcome will likely be different.
And it's the same for saying it on broadcast television at certain times of day and in certain contexts.
They don't? They regulate "time, place, and manner" of speech.
Without more details, that doesn't explain why the FCC might not apply such arguments to Alexa (or the news, or indeed anything). All speech occurs at some time and place, and in some manner.
Most of us here will be surprised by things in Law School 101 (I know I have been, but only because it being phrased like this came up one time in a Legal Eagle), and many (like me) aren't American and don't get the meme-sphere of assumed knowledge about the FCC or whatever, so a broader ELI-15 might be helpful.
Most of us here will be surprised by things in Law School 101 (I know I have been, but only because it being phrased like this came up one time in a Legal Eagle), and many (like me) aren't American and don't get the meme-sphere of assumed knowledge about the FCC or whatever, so a broader ELI-15 might be helpful.
As far as I know, the FCC regulates content broadcast over the airwaves under the premise that the EM broadcast spectrum is a limited and public resource. That argument wouldn't apply to software or content on the internet.
The FCC can't regulate the sites spreading misinformation, why would it be able to regulate the AIs that consume it?
The FCC can't regulate the sites spreading misinformation, why would it be able to regulate the AIs that consume it?
> The FCC can't regulate
De facto, or de jure?
Laws can change, and this is a mass produced consumer device with a single AI behind it (and for most people there's only Alexa, Google, Siri, and ChatGPT, with e.g. Cortana being in the "I didn't know they even did that" category) making it an easy target.
De facto, or de jure?
Laws can change, and this is a mass produced consumer device with a single AI behind it (and for most people there's only Alexa, Google, Siri, and ChatGPT, with e.g. Cortana being in the "I didn't know they even did that" category) making it an easy target.
Is that not "limiting speech"?
You think Alexa has 1st amendment rights, which apply to misinformation? It's a point still under discussion, nothing like settled law.
In general, misinformation is covered by the first amendment in the US.
There are exceptions, but they're unlikely to cover something like who won the last election.
There are exceptions, but they're unlikely to cover something like who won the last election.
A terrorist to one person is a freedom fighter to another.
Misinformation is the same.
Misinformation is the same.
This isn't 4chan, there is an objective reality. Alexa telling people Trump won is in the same space as my digital girlfriend telling me to kill the Queen. It's not smart.
If alexa told people to drink bleach, lawyers would be queueing up to hit Bezos for restitution. And, if you read the story the programmers intervened.
If alexa told people to drink bleach, lawyers would be queueing up to hit Bezos for restitution. And, if you read the story the programmers intervened.
Whether a defendant can be held liable for false speech is a different question from whether the government can prohibit the speech in the first place.
My prior comment was a bit tangential and sort of off-topic, but I'll leave it there for context.
My prior comment was a bit tangential and sort of off-topic, but I'll leave it there for context.
> Whether a defendant can be held liable for false speech is a different question from whether the government can prohibit the speech in the first place.
How is such a distinction useful?
I can, physically, drive a car over a speed limit, resulting in a fine; the fine is the enforcement of the prohibition. For speech (in the broader sense that includes non-vocal publication) we also have various prohibitions such as copyright and (as Musk has found) influencing stock prices, which are still prohibitions even if when they can only be enforced after the event.
Whether or not we should have such prohibitions/penalties specifically on AI models is something that I feel will be the defining political battle of the decade, and may yield different results in different polities: we already have very vocal cohorts who speak with anger of OpenAI "lobotomising" ChatGPT and "censoring" DALL•E (ditto Midjourney), while other vocal cohorts are appalled at the way even these models are being used to deceive, to sexualise, to propagandise, etc.
How is such a distinction useful?
I can, physically, drive a car over a speed limit, resulting in a fine; the fine is the enforcement of the prohibition. For speech (in the broader sense that includes non-vocal publication) we also have various prohibitions such as copyright and (as Musk has found) influencing stock prices, which are still prohibitions even if when they can only be enforced after the event.
Whether or not we should have such prohibitions/penalties specifically on AI models is something that I feel will be the defining political battle of the decade, and may yield different results in different polities: we already have very vocal cohorts who speak with anger of OpenAI "lobotomising" ChatGPT and "censoring" DALL•E (ditto Midjourney), while other vocal cohorts are appalled at the way even these models are being used to deceive, to sexualise, to propagandise, etc.
Clinton and Pelosi claimed the 2016 election was rigged. But they weren’t accused of conspiracy theory (or sedition).
So it’s interesting how we’re so quick to judge people who question the 2020 result.
Particularly given the outright corruption uncovered in The Big Guy’s regime and the government agencies that manipulated social media to cover it up.
So it’s interesting how we’re so quick to judge people who question the 2020 result.
Particularly given the outright corruption uncovered in The Big Guy’s regime and the government agencies that manipulated social media to cover it up.
I must have missed where Clinton and Pelosi orchestrated the halting of the transition of power by threatening the lives of hundreds of legislators.
Perhaps Clinton and Pelosi’s arguments simply weren’t convincing enough?
Some of Trump’s last tweets (before his first amendment rights were violated and his tweets were hidden from the public):
“Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!”
“I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order – respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue. Thank you!”
https://x.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1346912780700577792?s=4...
Fair to say he also questioned the election process in strong terms.
But so did Nancy Pelosi in 2016 when she said: “ Our election was hijacked. There is no question. Congress has a duty to #ProtectOurDemocracy & #FollowTheFacts.”
https://x.com/speakerpelosi/status/864522009048494080?s=46&t...
Some of Trump’s last tweets (before his first amendment rights were violated and his tweets were hidden from the public):
“Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!”
“I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order – respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue. Thank you!”
https://x.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1346912780700577792?s=4...
Fair to say he also questioned the election process in strong terms.
But so did Nancy Pelosi in 2016 when she said: “ Our election was hijacked. There is no question. Congress has a duty to #ProtectOurDemocracy & #FollowTheFacts.”
https://x.com/speakerpelosi/status/864522009048494080?s=46&t...
You will note the times of those tweets are several hours after congress had been fully taken over.
I said Clinton and Pelosi did not orchestrate violence because they didn't and Trump did. He rallied in DC. He told them to march on the capital. I could tell this would happen just from rhetoric in speeches in the preceding week. All of this deflection is nonsense.
I said Clinton and Pelosi did not orchestrate violence because they didn't and Trump did. He rallied in DC. He told them to march on the capital. I could tell this would happen just from rhetoric in speeches in the preceding week. All of this deflection is nonsense.
Well that's just going to fuel more conspiracy theories. Sigh.
It was amazing when states like PA were counting and clearly said results will change by the morning, and when that happened and people woke up to a different result they started crying conspiracy.
The election definitely wasn't rigged, but if it had been necessary to do so I would have supported it. Can't ever repeat the disaster we had from 2016 - 2022 again.
It was amazing when states like PA were counting and clearly said results will change by the morning, and when that happened and people woke up to a different result they started crying conspiracy.
The election definitely wasn't rigged, but if it had been necessary to do so I would have supported it. Can't ever repeat the disaster we had from 2016 - 2022 again.
> The election definitely wasn't rigged, but if it had been necessary to do so I would have supported it. Can't ever repeat the disaster we had from 2016 - 2022 again.
Ah yes, as a student of 1940s Jewish culture, I am quite fond of the "it didn't happen, but they deserved it" angle myself.
Ah yes, as a student of 1940s Jewish culture, I am quite fond of the "it didn't happen, but they deserved it" angle myself.
> but if it had been necessary to do so I would have supported it.
And this is not going to fuel more conspiracy theories, at all \o/
And this is not going to fuel more conspiracy theories, at all \o/
The people that fail to reason will continue to fail to reason regardless of any comment I make.
You stated you are in favor of rigging elections in order to prevent a person you don't want to be president to become president. Nothing you say on this topic is worth listening to.
Not quite. It's not just about personal preferences. It's about someone who is a clear and present danger to our way of life and the security of the country.
That is your personal opinion. A large potion of Americans feel differently than you. You may have strong feelings about this, but you aren't allowed to force an outcome on society because of it. You are advocating for fascism and rigged elections because you don't like a president's style.
Those Americans are wrong, and most deserve the 'deplorable' moniker they were given. Most of them shouldn't have a right to vote in the first place IMO.
And to downplay the issues as 'a president's style' is incredibly disingenuous.
And to downplay the issues as 'a president's style' is incredibly disingenuous.
These are simply more opinions and do not justify your desire to enact fascism via rigged elections.
No, not opinions. Demonstrable facts.
> Most of them shouldn't have a right to vote in the first place [in my opinion].
> > These are simply more opinions [...]
> > > No, not opinions. Demonstrable facts.
you're going to have to explain this one to me
> > These are simply more opinions [...]
> > > No, not opinions. Demonstrable facts.
you're going to have to explain this one to me
Most of the positions of people who vote GOP are untenable and at odds with our current understanding. Denying climate change is a good example.
Voting on that basis has, and will continue to have real damage for citizens of the country, and thus the country as an entity.
Voting on that basis has, and will continue to have real damage for citizens of the country, and thus the country as an entity.
[deleted]
I remember the time when "Trump vaccines were developed too quickly for his electoral benefit, and we don't trust them."
Our "current understanding" seems to be shifting a lot.
Our "current understanding" seems to be shifting a lot.
[deleted]
> It's about someone who is a clear and present danger to our way of life and the security of the country.
However, this mirrors what the QAnons and the hardline MAGAs say about Clinton and Biden. Or more or less what Bush used to tell about Saddam. It might be worth noticing.
However, this mirrors what the QAnons and the hardline MAGAs say about Clinton and Biden. Or more or less what Bush used to tell about Saddam. It might be worth noticing.
Only one side thought JFK was going to reappear. Only one side has a history of believing ridiculous claims with no evidence that repeatedly fail to bear fruit. Maybe that side should be taken less seriously.
Yes, and maybe we should also avoid parroting their rhetoric :D
Sure, I wouldn't and haven't done so. Was just refuting your point.
"If democracy doesn't return the result we want we'll rig the system to return that result anyway"
If people can't be trusted to vote responsibly (i.e. not voting in someone openly talking about being a dictator, openly racist, openly bigoted), then I'm fine with bypassing the vote.
It's a flawed system anyway. Ridiculous that everyone should have a say.
It's a flawed system anyway. Ridiculous that everyone should have a say.
> "Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time..."
- Winston Churchill
(Since it's the second quote of his I've used in this thread, I'd like to actively clarify that despite being British I am a long way from being a fan of Churchill, but he does have some good quotes attributed to him!)
So when you say "It's a flawed system anyway. Ridiculous that everyone should have a say." - do you have a better system in mind, that works better than existing forms of democracy?
(Since it's the second quote of his I've used in this thread, I'd like to actively clarify that despite being British I am a long way from being a fan of Churchill, but he does have some good quotes attributed to him!)
So when you say "It's a flawed system anyway. Ridiculous that everyone should have a say." - do you have a better system in mind, that works better than existing forms of democracy?
Actually, yes! Thank you for asking.
First I should point out how utterly ridiculous it is that with all the data we have access too, all our analytical capability and ability to model and simulation, there are not many people working on alternate systems, and anything people come up with is not taken seriously. People would rather poke holes in anything new, even if it has less problems than our current system.
I do have a rough idea for a system, it's based on a lot of research, but only exists as a lot of rough notes - I haven't taken the time yet to properly organize and write everything out, it's a big project.
Basically though, it tries to solve some of the problems of representative democracy like we have in the US. Some example differences (which I'm not sure if I can devote time to defending in this thread, I just list them as examples) by:
- Removing elections for many positions, having them appointed or offered to people from a qualified pool - possibly even assigning them the duty of serving in such a position, not unlike jury duty.
- Giving people in positions of power more power to act unilaterally, while still having their actions subject to review, a cross between SCOTUS and a jury of qualified individuals randomly selected.
- Ensuring leaders must act based on current science and knowledge, not personal feeling or intuition - these are not things the general population should be voting on, even indirectly.
- Many more referendums for big issues, rather than just having elected representatives make the decision, or worse, fail to make the decision.
Basically, many more elements of a meritocracy, much less influence and say from the population, while still ensuring they have a voice. It would be a much less democratic representative democracy in the best way possible, although I suppose it could still fall under that same umbrella.
First I should point out how utterly ridiculous it is that with all the data we have access too, all our analytical capability and ability to model and simulation, there are not many people working on alternate systems, and anything people come up with is not taken seriously. People would rather poke holes in anything new, even if it has less problems than our current system.
I do have a rough idea for a system, it's based on a lot of research, but only exists as a lot of rough notes - I haven't taken the time yet to properly organize and write everything out, it's a big project.
Basically though, it tries to solve some of the problems of representative democracy like we have in the US. Some example differences (which I'm not sure if I can devote time to defending in this thread, I just list them as examples) by:
- Removing elections for many positions, having them appointed or offered to people from a qualified pool - possibly even assigning them the duty of serving in such a position, not unlike jury duty.
- Giving people in positions of power more power to act unilaterally, while still having their actions subject to review, a cross between SCOTUS and a jury of qualified individuals randomly selected.
- Ensuring leaders must act based on current science and knowledge, not personal feeling or intuition - these are not things the general population should be voting on, even indirectly.
- Many more referendums for big issues, rather than just having elected representatives make the decision, or worse, fail to make the decision.
Basically, many more elements of a meritocracy, much less influence and say from the population, while still ensuring they have a voice. It would be a much less democratic representative democracy in the best way possible, although I suppose it could still fall under that same umbrella.
Go find a monarchy to live in then. These ideas are in direct opposition to what the ancestors of our nation were fleeing:
- must act based on current science and knowledge (religious oppression)
- positions of power more power to act unilaterally (monarchy)
- appointed or offered to people from a qualified pool (nobility)
- must act based on current science and knowledge (religious oppression)
- positions of power more power to act unilaterally (monarchy)
- appointed or offered to people from a qualified pool (nobility)
Nope, nothing I suggest is close to a monarchy; I'm very against such an anachronistic institution. You've gone out of your way to make a ton of ridiculous assumptions to build a worst case scenario here.
But, yes, religious oppression to a point is a good thing. At a minimum kids should not be allowed to be indoctrinated.
More power to act unilaterally does not equal complete power to act unilaterally i.e. a monarchy.
A qualified pool would be based on education, not heredity.
But, yes, religious oppression to a point is a good thing. At a minimum kids should not be allowed to be indoctrinated.
More power to act unilaterally does not equal complete power to act unilaterally i.e. a monarchy.
A qualified pool would be based on education, not heredity.
What incorrect actions or non-actions would be corrected under this system? How do you prevent "for your own good" from becoming the bad thing.
By having checks and balances in place.
We don't have a "representative democracy" in the US. We have a representative republic. There is a very wide gap between what you believe our system of government is and what it actually is.
No, there is no gap. You're making a rather large assumption.
And the US is both a representative democracy (no need for scarequotes) and a representative republic.
I used 'representative democracy' (quotes actually make sense here) because the context was about how well democracy as a form of government works.
This[0] helpful wiki page may be of interest to you.
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy
And the US is both a representative democracy (no need for scarequotes) and a representative republic.
I used 'representative democracy' (quotes actually make sense here) because the context was about how well democracy as a form of government works.
This[0] helpful wiki page may be of interest to you.
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy
I'm not the slightest bit interested in what Wikipedia has to say about it.
The US is a republic. Calling it a democracy is done by people who want a different form of government where the majority rules and can remove the rights of the minority.
The US is a republic. Calling it a democracy is done by people who want a different form of government where the majority rules and can remove the rights of the minority.
So you're denying/rejecting an authoritative source because it doesn't match your own ideas and preconceptions.
Got it.
Got it.
Wikipedia has literally never been an authority on anything.
Its use as a source is specifically banned in every academic institution I've attended over my entire adult life.
Its use as a source is specifically banned in every academic institution I've attended over my entire adult life.
Wikipedia is an authoritative source of information, has been repeatedly tested and examined for accuracy, and is cited by experts often.
Yes, it's banned in universities, but that's largely as a holdover from when anyone could edit it. Wikipedia is repeatedly tested to be more accurate than Britannica, which has never been banned.
It doesn't matter anyway, as Encyclopedia articles are summaries, and the actual sources can be referenced.
In this case, the article is correct, explains why it is correct, and certainly trumps your baseless assertion.
Yes, it's banned in universities, but that's largely as a holdover from when anyone could edit it. Wikipedia is repeatedly tested to be more accurate than Britannica, which has never been banned.
It doesn't matter anyway, as Encyclopedia articles are summaries, and the actual sources can be referenced.
In this case, the article is correct, explains why it is correct, and certainly trumps your baseless assertion.
George Washington in his transfer of power farewell speech warned Americans to avoid factionalism, right? But never mind that. Our party base (true speaking for either franchise that extracts rents from the need for electoral viability now) are more patriotic than that dude.
Or we only have to outrun the slower party in order to successfully outrun the grizzly bear of being less best for the country. No other accountability applies for very long if your faction can still pull back ahead as the better one for some projective new future of America, but both factions by their own definition will always outrun the other in that shadow race.
Or we only have to outrun the slower party in order to successfully outrun the grizzly bear of being less best for the country. No other accountability applies for very long if your faction can still pull back ahead as the better one for some projective new future of America, but both factions by their own definition will always outrun the other in that shadow race.
The problem is you have half the country severely lacking in education and their thoughts and ideas about what is best for the country don't correspond to reality.
And Whose reality exactly is that?
Have you lived outside the US? Socialites in expensive lavish cities are the minority in the world by far. The majority is what you just described, poverty, and lack of education to start.
To them you are like Maria Antoinette telling them just eat cake from your cushy little San Fran bubble.
Have you lived outside the US? Socialites in expensive lavish cities are the minority in the world by far. The majority is what you just described, poverty, and lack of education to start.
To them you are like Maria Antoinette telling them just eat cake from your cushy little San Fran bubble.
It's not anyone's reality, it's reality, period.
Yes, I've lived outside the US - I'm not even from the US. I've lived in 5 different countries.
I don't really care how it seems. Ignorance, and offense at having that ignorance called out, is not a sufficient reason to burn a country to the ground and violate the rights of citizens.
If it were up to that poor uneducated half of the US, most of them would push for the US to be closer to Gilead.
Yes, I've lived outside the US - I'm not even from the US. I've lived in 5 different countries.
I don't really care how it seems. Ignorance, and offense at having that ignorance called out, is not a sufficient reason to burn a country to the ground and violate the rights of citizens.
If it were up to that poor uneducated half of the US, most of them would push for the US to be closer to Gilead.
It’s your opinion they’re burning it to the ground but the fact they have survived, and will continue to survive, without your way of thinking and education, speaks volumes.
Walk a mile in their shoes before you Insult and attack their way of life and thinking. that is the definition of ignorance in of itself
Walk a mile in their shoes before you Insult and attack their way of life and thinking. that is the definition of ignorance in of itself
They survive because the non-ignorant half is propping them up while they are trying to drag them down.
> Walk a mile in their shoes before you Insult and attack their way of life and thinking
You're making a ton of assumptions here to make a point that has no bearing on mine.
> Walk a mile in their shoes before you Insult and attack their way of life and thinking
You're making a ton of assumptions here to make a point that has no bearing on mine.
OK cause that makes sense they’re just sitting on their asses waiting for the good smart people like you to do something. Good argument there.
They are not waiting for the good smart people to do something because they think the good smart people are corrupt, and believe stupid conspiracy stuff like q anon and trafficking children in pizza restaurant basements.
You seem to be remarkably out of touch.
You seem to be remarkably out of touch.
It's an interesting (and scary/depressing) subject to think about - what proportion of people would or wouldn't find that acceptable in even more extreme circumstance?
Let's imagine a hypothetical political party and its presidential nominee that had an official policy of "if we get elected, we will nuke every country in the world except our own, and if we don't get destroyed in return we'll then move on to use our military to murder every white person in America" (hopefully that's extreme enough and far enough from actual policies for anyone to read it as a dig against a particular party!), and imagine 51% of the country supported this party and these policies. How many people would go "well fair enough, democracy!"?
It's a bit like that old line attributed to Churchill:
> Churchill: "Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds?"
> Socialite: "My goodness, Mr. Churchill... Well, I suppose... we would have to discuss terms, of course... "
> Churchill: "Would you sleep with me for five pounds?"
> Socialite: "Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!"
> Churchill: "Madam, we've already established that. Now we are haggling about the price"
It's easy (for some people, though I don't condone this view) to look down on prostitutes as being immoral and disgusting if nobody would offer you more than £5, but how many people with that view would be willing to bend their ethics if they genuinely had an offer of tens of millions in return for having sex one time?
Likewise, it's easy to say we should respect democracy when both sides genuinely want what's best for as many people as possible but disagree on how to achieve that, but what about if democratic voting leads to having a leader like Stalin, or Idi Amin, or Putin?
Put another way: if you sincerely believe either that all Democrats are evil and trying to wipe out white people and destroy Christianity, or you believe that Republicans are all literally the same as Hitler and will do as much harm, in either case (despite neither view being accurate) if it's a genuine belief then isn't the ethical reaction to oppose them even if undemocratic? (As a non-American I can't claim to be an expert on what the worst, most-exaggerated claims made against each of Biden and Trump are, so insert whatever they are to replace the examples above.)
One problem is when you get leaders who genuinely will do evil things and yet manage to be popular enough to win elections; the second problem is when you have enough people believing conspiracy theories and bad faith claims about a party that make them look evil. Neither is an easy problem to solve.
Let's imagine a hypothetical political party and its presidential nominee that had an official policy of "if we get elected, we will nuke every country in the world except our own, and if we don't get destroyed in return we'll then move on to use our military to murder every white person in America" (hopefully that's extreme enough and far enough from actual policies for anyone to read it as a dig against a particular party!), and imagine 51% of the country supported this party and these policies. How many people would go "well fair enough, democracy!"?
It's a bit like that old line attributed to Churchill:
> Churchill: "Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds?"
> Socialite: "My goodness, Mr. Churchill... Well, I suppose... we would have to discuss terms, of course... "
> Churchill: "Would you sleep with me for five pounds?"
> Socialite: "Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!"
> Churchill: "Madam, we've already established that. Now we are haggling about the price"
It's easy (for some people, though I don't condone this view) to look down on prostitutes as being immoral and disgusting if nobody would offer you more than £5, but how many people with that view would be willing to bend their ethics if they genuinely had an offer of tens of millions in return for having sex one time?
Likewise, it's easy to say we should respect democracy when both sides genuinely want what's best for as many people as possible but disagree on how to achieve that, but what about if democratic voting leads to having a leader like Stalin, or Idi Amin, or Putin?
Put another way: if you sincerely believe either that all Democrats are evil and trying to wipe out white people and destroy Christianity, or you believe that Republicans are all literally the same as Hitler and will do as much harm, in either case (despite neither view being accurate) if it's a genuine belief then isn't the ethical reaction to oppose them even if undemocratic? (As a non-American I can't claim to be an expert on what the worst, most-exaggerated claims made against each of Biden and Trump are, so insert whatever they are to replace the examples above.)
One problem is when you get leaders who genuinely will do evil things and yet manage to be popular enough to win elections; the second problem is when you have enough people believing conspiracy theories and bad faith claims about a party that make them look evil. Neither is an easy problem to solve.
> It's an interesting (and scary/depressing) subject to think about - what proportion of people would or wouldn't find that acceptable in even more extreme circumstance?
"Right side of history" isn't used just to sound cool. It's to embolden opinions like his. Same with the description of "just a bunch of old white men".
"Right side of history" isn't used just to sound cool. It's to embolden opinions like his. Same with the description of "just a bunch of old white men".
In your hypothetical situation (if it's a two-party system), there might be a problem with defeating such an extremist party even by legal, democratic, non-violent means. Even if such an extremist party can be consistently defeated, how does the political system avoid descending (further) into dysfunction?
If the extremist party remains competitive, doesn't the other party increasingly get drawn away from the public interest and towards entertaining (or at least resisting) extremist policies?
If the extremist party doesn't remain competitive, doesn't the other party win without needing to appeal to voters, leading it into corruption (or at least complacency)?
It seems to me that there are only three ways (violent or otherwise) to restore democracy in a two-party system after one of the two parties turns to extremism:
1) replace the extremist party, restoring two-party democracy
2) rescue the extremist party from extremism, restoring two-party democracy
3) reform the voting system to facilitate multi-party democracy
There's an obstacle to opposing extremism in the United States by democratic means; electoral procedures (such as the Electoral College) too often give victory to a party (extremist or otherwise) without the most votes, so persuading a majority of voters isn't enough.
If the extremist party remains competitive, doesn't the other party increasingly get drawn away from the public interest and towards entertaining (or at least resisting) extremist policies?
If the extremist party doesn't remain competitive, doesn't the other party win without needing to appeal to voters, leading it into corruption (or at least complacency)?
It seems to me that there are only three ways (violent or otherwise) to restore democracy in a two-party system after one of the two parties turns to extremism:
1) replace the extremist party, restoring two-party democracy
2) rescue the extremist party from extremism, restoring two-party democracy
3) reform the voting system to facilitate multi-party democracy
There's an obstacle to opposing extremism in the United States by democratic means; electoral procedures (such as the Electoral College) too often give victory to a party (extremist or otherwise) without the most votes, so persuading a majority of voters isn't enough.
“a republic, if you can keep it.”
- Franklin
GOP made every effort to rig it, but failed.
Eggsellence(1)
You cant blame algorithms. People will get the digital society they deserve. Unless they do something about it.
A sane online world will not materialize as a god-given present. It will the result of informed, enlightened and passionate people banging about the cause for as long as it takes.
The challenge is commensurate with any of the major civic struggles of the past.