U.S. Capitol Locked Down Amid Escalating Protests(npr.org)
npr.org
U.S. Capitol Locked Down Amid Escalating Protests
https://www.npr.org/sections/congress-electoral-college-tally-live-updates/2021/01/06/954028436/u-s-capitol-locked-down-amid-escalating-far-right-protests
2,572 comments
How did we arrive to this point where a huge chunk of the population is in one reality and another huge chunk of the population is in another reality? Segregation of information sources? Politicization of media outlets? Self-reinforcing social bubbles? A combination of all of them and more?
I blame the internet. Back in the days before it, we had to learn to live with those around us, now you can just go out and find someone as equally stupid as yourself.
I call it the toaster fucker problem. Man wakes up in 1980, tells his friends "I want to fuck a toaster" Friends quite rightly berate and laugh at him, guy deals with it, maybe gets some therapy and goes on a bit better adjusted.
Guy in 2021 tells his friends that he wants to fuck a toaster, gets laughed at, immediately jumps on facebook and finds "Toaster Fucker Support group" where he reads that he's actually oppressed and he needs to cut out everyone around him and should only listen to his fellow toaster fuckers.
Apply this analogy to literally any insular bubble, it applies as equally to /r/thedonald as it does to the emaciated Che Guevara larpers that cry thinking about ringing their favourite pizza place.
I call it the toaster fucker problem. Man wakes up in 1980, tells his friends "I want to fuck a toaster" Friends quite rightly berate and laugh at him, guy deals with it, maybe gets some therapy and goes on a bit better adjusted.
Guy in 2021 tells his friends that he wants to fuck a toaster, gets laughed at, immediately jumps on facebook and finds "Toaster Fucker Support group" where he reads that he's actually oppressed and he needs to cut out everyone around him and should only listen to his fellow toaster fuckers.
Apply this analogy to literally any insular bubble, it applies as equally to /r/thedonald as it does to the emaciated Che Guevara larpers that cry thinking about ringing their favourite pizza place.
Not more of this anti-toaster-fucking bigotry!
It is _completely_ normal for a grown man to seek a consensual, carnal relationship with any electrical appliance of his choosing.
Just because you can't understand the deep, intimate bond that comes from inserting your genitals into a toaster, it doesn't give you the right to shame others.
I've shared your post with my good friends at the Toaster Fucker Support Group. Expect to get doxxed within the next 48 hours, bigot.
I've shared your post with my good friends at the Toaster Fucker Support Group. Expect to get doxxed within the next 48 hours, bigot.
> I blame the internet.
The irony of this ahistorical claim is that it comes very close to "Make America great again".
Think about the Vietnam War. The civil rights era. The McCarthy era. The list is almost endless. The Civil War, of course. The US has almost always had major polarization. If anything, the internet reveals what had been hidden by the whitewashed corporate Big Three TV network monopoly, which was itself an historical anomaly.
You know the Pulitzer Prize for journalism? Well, Joseph Pulitzer himself was unapologetically partisan. As was William Randolph Hearst, et al. The whole idea of "objective journalism" is not much more than a naive blip.
The irony of this ahistorical claim is that it comes very close to "Make America great again".
Think about the Vietnam War. The civil rights era. The McCarthy era. The list is almost endless. The Civil War, of course. The US has almost always had major polarization. If anything, the internet reveals what had been hidden by the whitewashed corporate Big Three TV network monopoly, which was itself an historical anomaly.
You know the Pulitzer Prize for journalism? Well, Joseph Pulitzer himself was unapologetically partisan. As was William Randolph Hearst, et al. The whole idea of "objective journalism" is not much more than a naive blip.
I agree, the difference now is that we have direct access to the information, it doesn't have to filter through a journalist now. All these twitter/facebook/youtube bans are trying to put a genie back in a bottle, Parler is gaining steam and Bitchute recently hit its funding goals.
Also, yeah, the term yellow journalism refers to Pulitzer's rags. Completely on board with that as well.
Also, yeah, the term yellow journalism refers to Pulitzer's rags. Completely on board with that as well.
Of course it's not that one-sided. Let's not forget that the same technology that provides a safe haven for toaster fuckers also enables people with more sane, progressive yet equally niche ideas to find like-minded peers and escape the problematic offline environments and tribalism they may have been brought up in.
Sure, it's a double-edged sword, but that doesn't mean the comment you're replying to is wrong.
Continuing the analogy, it comes down to the impossibility that such tools only be used for good. We can't approach 100% without draconian censorship, but we can probably get to 90% with better education. Apparently we're currently around 50%.
Of course not. I just wanted to provide a glimpse on the other side of that coin.
I would add that the pandemic make us skip the part of telling friends.
And the invention of twitter... most sane people don't talk. If they ever say anything, it is too common sensual to be retweeted. But if someone say something explosive it got exponentially retweeted. The character limit also eliminate the possibility of any nuance in position.
And the invention of twitter... most sane people don't talk. If they ever say anything, it is too common sensual to be retweeted. But if someone say something explosive it got exponentially retweeted. The character limit also eliminate the possibility of any nuance in position.
You certainly did not have to live with those around you before the internet, and were sometimes very much encouraged not to.
It isn't like the LGBTQ+ community was treated well. It was perfectly acceptable to not hire a queer school teacher, nor was it such a bad thing for students to shun a queer classmate. Or you could look at marriage between "races" and the slurs you got from them. A core teaching of a number of churches is to surround yourself with other believers instead of the non-believer next door. And certainly make sure you fit into your gender roles.
Best not to have communist or socialist leanings in the 50's, nor be asian in the US in the 40's. In so many places, it was outright dangerous to have dark skin.
Sometimes you would just accept those around you because that was all you had access to, which is true... so long as they weren't in the wrong group lest you be treated like the minority.
Social media amplifies some bubbles, but it also breaks a few and some things are more difficult to ignore.
It isn't like the LGBTQ+ community was treated well. It was perfectly acceptable to not hire a queer school teacher, nor was it such a bad thing for students to shun a queer classmate. Or you could look at marriage between "races" and the slurs you got from them. A core teaching of a number of churches is to surround yourself with other believers instead of the non-believer next door. And certainly make sure you fit into your gender roles.
Best not to have communist or socialist leanings in the 50's, nor be asian in the US in the 40's. In so many places, it was outright dangerous to have dark skin.
Sometimes you would just accept those around you because that was all you had access to, which is true... so long as they weren't in the wrong group lest you be treated like the minority.
Social media amplifies some bubbles, but it also breaks a few and some things are more difficult to ignore.
other countries also have internet access. the impact on them doesn't appear to be the same. why is that?
I dunno. The UK got whipped into an online frenzy prior to the Brexit vote. Notably, there was possible Russian interference during that campaign on Twitter, similar to the US [1]. And Bolsonaro got elected in Brazil, largely due to manipulation on WhatsApp. Roughly 47% of the country uses WhatsApp, and of the top fifty images circulating at the time of the election, only four were real [2].
Social media has proven itself to have massive impact on the zeitgeist, and it has been weaponized the world over to serve the interests of those willing to manipulate others in order to further their own (often misanthropic) goals.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/14/how-400-russia...
[2] https://www.cfr.org/blog/whatsapps-influence-brazilian-elect...
Social media has proven itself to have massive impact on the zeitgeist, and it has been weaponized the world over to serve the interests of those willing to manipulate others in order to further their own (often misanthropic) goals.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/14/how-400-russia...
[2] https://www.cfr.org/blog/whatsapps-influence-brazilian-elect...
Most of the Russian stories were pure election stories, there is almost no merit to it at all.
This is actually one thing I don't understand about the alleged progressive side and many people share this view. You could be made to believe basically anything the same way Trump supporters believe a communist overtake of the US is imminent.
Furthermore the support these stories got from intelligence agencies point to very serious problems that do indeed influence democracy in a very bad way, far worse than Putin can imagine in his dreams. Of course it might put a smile on his face, that much is understood.
True that the zeitgeist has influence, but it is mainly driven by western companies, not by the Russian government. Aside from the language barrier you cannot name one talking point this alleged Russian propaganda contained.
You do understand the implication if you decry any opposition to EU integration as Russian interference? Because any political discourse stops right there with you.
No, there was honest dissatisfaction with the EU in Britain. That might be wrong or not, but the Russian thing just made people reinforce their views, because that actually makes sense now.
Russians, seriously...
Brazil is another story here, although I think the facts have to be checked.
This is actually one thing I don't understand about the alleged progressive side and many people share this view. You could be made to believe basically anything the same way Trump supporters believe a communist overtake of the US is imminent.
Furthermore the support these stories got from intelligence agencies point to very serious problems that do indeed influence democracy in a very bad way, far worse than Putin can imagine in his dreams. Of course it might put a smile on his face, that much is understood.
True that the zeitgeist has influence, but it is mainly driven by western companies, not by the Russian government. Aside from the language barrier you cannot name one talking point this alleged Russian propaganda contained.
You do understand the implication if you decry any opposition to EU integration as Russian interference? Because any political discourse stops right there with you.
No, there was honest dissatisfaction with the EU in Britain. That might be wrong or not, but the Russian thing just made people reinforce their views, because that actually makes sense now.
Russians, seriously...
Brazil is another story here, although I think the facts have to be checked.
> honest dissatisfaction with the EU in Britain
Well, I don't know how honest you'd call The Sun. Obviously, it wasn't Russia - but equally obviously, the whole euro-skepticism thing was hardly an organic phenomenon. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a single issue of a right wing British tabloid published in the last ten years that didn't have at least one article in it about how bad the EU is.
Influencing democracy is older than democracy - I think the thing that's causing such a furore is that the internet is lowering the barriers for this kind of yellow-press skulduggery, to the point that losers like Steve Bannon start to have actual power.
Well, I don't know how honest you'd call The Sun. Obviously, it wasn't Russia - but equally obviously, the whole euro-skepticism thing was hardly an organic phenomenon. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a single issue of a right wing British tabloid published in the last ten years that didn't have at least one article in it about how bad the EU is.
Influencing democracy is older than democracy - I think the thing that's causing such a furore is that the internet is lowering the barriers for this kind of yellow-press skulduggery, to the point that losers like Steve Bannon start to have actual power.
It was and still is purely organic. The entire establishment aggressively suppressed euroskepticism of any kind for decades to the level that it required a total outsider, who was himself frozen out completely, to create an entirely new political party twice and bring them to winning enough votes to ensure the Conservatives couldn't ignore it anymore.
You say "the Sun" as if a single tabloid the vast majority of all powerful people and decision makers don't even read was some decisive factor. Now consider the total and complete opposition of the BBC, the Guardian, the Economist, the Financial Times, the Times, the Civil Service, dominant factions in both political factions, etc.
To say Brexit wasn't organic is to innuendo into existence some vast but vague conspiracy. "Obviously" it wasn't Russia you say, but it had to be someone right? Isn't this the same sort of rhetoric that has lead to the Capitol just being stormed? Isn't it far more likely that parts of the British press reported bad stories about the EU for decades simply because there were bad stories to report, as you'd expect there to be? And reporting stories about governments is the sort of thing a free press is supposed to do?
You say "the Sun" as if a single tabloid the vast majority of all powerful people and decision makers don't even read was some decisive factor. Now consider the total and complete opposition of the BBC, the Guardian, the Economist, the Financial Times, the Times, the Civil Service, dominant factions in both political factions, etc.
To say Brexit wasn't organic is to innuendo into existence some vast but vague conspiracy. "Obviously" it wasn't Russia you say, but it had to be someone right? Isn't this the same sort of rhetoric that has lead to the Capitol just being stormed? Isn't it far more likely that parts of the British press reported bad stories about the EU for decades simply because there were bad stories to report, as you'd expect there to be? And reporting stories about governments is the sort of thing a free press is supposed to do?
Do you live in the UK? It's hard for non-residents to understand the impact of The Sun. It's the most read newspaper by far - having a greater readership than all the other papers you mentioned combined.
After the victory of John Major in 1992, the Sun ran the headline 'IT'S THE SUN WOT WON IT', a line that's since become a sort of mantra in english politics - nobody has won an election since without the support of The Sun.
The second most read is the Daily Mail, another euroskeptic paper. In fact, if you look down the list of papers by readership [1], you can see the euroskeptic press (Telegraph, Mail, Murdoch papers) is almost the entirety of newspapers that are in circulation.
I'm not saying there's some vast conspiracy. I'm just saying that Rupert Murdoch is not a fan of large, big-state regulatory projects, and as a result, his papers (which include the Times, for instance) have followed an anti-EU line. He traditionally takes a very active role in this kind of editorial decision making, and is very public about this fact.
Obviously, the establishment in england are traditionally liberal, internationalist, and the argument for Brexit is a hard sell on pragmatic grounds for obvious reasons - and that's why the vast majority of powerful people were against Brexit, and it took 'outsiders' to push the campaign through.
However, these 'outsiders' were able to do so because they knew the issue sold well with both conservative core demographics and swing voters. And, if you think that your average midlands swing voter would have opinions about supra-national trade standards without some serious narrative building, I have a bridge to sell you.
[1] - https://www.statista.com/statistics/529060/uk-newspaper-mark...
After the victory of John Major in 1992, the Sun ran the headline 'IT'S THE SUN WOT WON IT', a line that's since become a sort of mantra in english politics - nobody has won an election since without the support of The Sun.
The second most read is the Daily Mail, another euroskeptic paper. In fact, if you look down the list of papers by readership [1], you can see the euroskeptic press (Telegraph, Mail, Murdoch papers) is almost the entirety of newspapers that are in circulation.
I'm not saying there's some vast conspiracy. I'm just saying that Rupert Murdoch is not a fan of large, big-state regulatory projects, and as a result, his papers (which include the Times, for instance) have followed an anti-EU line. He traditionally takes a very active role in this kind of editorial decision making, and is very public about this fact.
Obviously, the establishment in england are traditionally liberal, internationalist, and the argument for Brexit is a hard sell on pragmatic grounds for obvious reasons - and that's why the vast majority of powerful people were against Brexit, and it took 'outsiders' to push the campaign through.
However, these 'outsiders' were able to do so because they knew the issue sold well with both conservative core demographics and swing voters. And, if you think that your average midlands swing voter would have opinions about supra-national trade standards without some serious narrative building, I have a bridge to sell you.
[1] - https://www.statista.com/statistics/529060/uk-newspaper-mark...
Not any more but I used to. Yes the Sun has a lot of readers compared to the FT. None of them are the sorts of people who are anywhere even close to power or influence, except in the vague way that any large group of people has power in a democracy.
You do have to be careful not to assume forwards causation. The argument that the British people dislike the EU because the successful parts of the press publishes negative stories about it can also be rephrased as, many people dislike the EU and successful newspapers don't ignore that. That is people's views drive newspaper coverage, not the other way around.
if you think that your average midlands swing voter would have opinions about supra-national trade standards without some serious narrative building, I have a bridge to sell you
But if you think the EU is actually only about supra-national trade standards, then I have a bridge to sell you too ;)
If the EU was just a European ISO that issued standards on goods labelling nobody would have ever cared, you're correct. It's obviously nothing even close to that, and very keen on trade standards being even less of what it does in future.
You do have to be careful not to assume forwards causation. The argument that the British people dislike the EU because the successful parts of the press publishes negative stories about it can also be rephrased as, many people dislike the EU and successful newspapers don't ignore that. That is people's views drive newspaper coverage, not the other way around.
if you think that your average midlands swing voter would have opinions about supra-national trade standards without some serious narrative building, I have a bridge to sell you
But if you think the EU is actually only about supra-national trade standards, then I have a bridge to sell you too ;)
If the EU was just a European ISO that issued standards on goods labelling nobody would have ever cared, you're correct. It's obviously nothing even close to that, and very keen on trade standards being even less of what it does in future.
> None of them are the sorts of people who are anywhere even close to power or influence,
Isn't that exactly the point? Brexit happened because of a referendum where normal people got a vote.
> That is people's views drive newspaper coverage, not the other way around.
I think if this was true, nobody would bother printing them. It's not like they make much money. I'm sure there's an element of organic xenophobia that would make people sympathetic to the EU free movement idea, but I don't think that's enough to create a demand for daily updates on how 'bonkers brussels bureaucrats ban bent bannanas!' (a genuine story).
I don't think anybody ever has picked up a paper because they were dying to get the details about that particular scoop - and honestly, that was one of the most memorable ones.
I can see some grounds on which Euroscepticism was organic in england, but I also have absolutely no doubt that such an idea would never have been successful without the amount of media support it got.
Isn't that exactly the point? Brexit happened because of a referendum where normal people got a vote.
> That is people's views drive newspaper coverage, not the other way around.
I think if this was true, nobody would bother printing them. It's not like they make much money. I'm sure there's an element of organic xenophobia that would make people sympathetic to the EU free movement idea, but I don't think that's enough to create a demand for daily updates on how 'bonkers brussels bureaucrats ban bent bannanas!' (a genuine story).
I don't think anybody ever has picked up a paper because they were dying to get the details about that particular scoop - and honestly, that was one of the most memorable ones.
I can see some grounds on which Euroscepticism was organic in england, but I also have absolutely no doubt that such an idea would never have been successful without the amount of media support it got.
I don't think anybody ever has picked up a paper because they were dying to get the details about that particular scoop - and honestly, that was one of the most memorable ones.
That was over a decade ago yet you remember it and are still talking about it. Obviously that was quite the scoop, which is exactly what newspapers love and how they make money.
A free press loves embarrassing governments by showing them doing stupid stuff. The press in Europe is a mockery of a free press because too many journalists at some point decided that the EU is a morally and ideologically pure vision of the future, so they just stopped reporting on all the bad stuff it does even when it'd make for interesting stories, whilst continuing to do such reports on their local governments. Except in the UK, where parts of the press retained their traditional role.
I think if this was true, nobody would bother printing them. It's not like they make much money.
Left wing super-pro-EU papers often don't indeed. Other papers do make money, plenty enough to justify making them. The Daily Mail made £72 million in profits in 2020 despite COVID. The Guardian bled money and announced job losses.
That was over a decade ago yet you remember it and are still talking about it. Obviously that was quite the scoop, which is exactly what newspapers love and how they make money.
A free press loves embarrassing governments by showing them doing stupid stuff. The press in Europe is a mockery of a free press because too many journalists at some point decided that the EU is a morally and ideologically pure vision of the future, so they just stopped reporting on all the bad stuff it does even when it'd make for interesting stories, whilst continuing to do such reports on their local governments. Except in the UK, where parts of the press retained their traditional role.
I think if this was true, nobody would bother printing them. It's not like they make much money.
Left wing super-pro-EU papers often don't indeed. Other papers do make money, plenty enough to justify making them. The Daily Mail made £72 million in profits in 2020 despite COVID. The Guardian bled money and announced job losses.
Political union was a stupid idea, Europeans all have different values that I doubt can be reconciled for the sake of good governance. I doubt the average German cares what a French cheese is called or what the dimensions of the wheel are, as long as it's safe to eat. Similarly, the average Frenchman gives absolutely zero shits about what's happening in Germany as long as there aren't troops forging through the Ardennes.
That and the structure of the EU government is a mess, the parliament has precisely zero impact on decision making and everything is run by the unelected bureaucrats in Belgium.
That and the structure of the EU government is a mess, the parliament has precisely zero impact on decision making and everything is run by the unelected bureaucrats in Belgium.
I get the argument, but I think if you look at the history of small nations sandwiched between large ones, you draw the opposite conclusion.
The UK has essentially walked away from a position of power in a very large nation, to take a position as a small nation on the periphery.
That might be fine for ten years, it might even be fine for fifty - but inevitably, the difference in negotiating power between the UK and its neighbors will show, to the UK's detriment.
It's already been showing in the brexit negotiations, where the EU held essentially all the cards.
The UK has essentially walked away from a position of power in a very large nation, to take a position as a small nation on the periphery.
That might be fine for ten years, it might even be fine for fifty - but inevitably, the difference in negotiating power between the UK and its neighbors will show, to the UK's detriment.
It's already been showing in the brexit negotiations, where the EU held essentially all the cards.
What an interesting conclusion to draw. I wonder where you get your news from.
The UK/EU deal isn't perfect but Norway and Switzerland already pricked their ears up and senior politicians in both countries are now publicly questioning why they can't have the same sort of deal. The EU backed down on many things they'd previously claimed were requirements, like the ECJ. And the UK has signed over 60 trade deals in preparation for leaving.
There's a sort of assumption here that might makes right. But the richest countries in the world are all small ones: Switzerland, Singapore, etc. Meanwhile empires spent most of the 20th century collapsing, often due to internal corruption and decay.
The UK/EU deal isn't perfect but Norway and Switzerland already pricked their ears up and senior politicians in both countries are now publicly questioning why they can't have the same sort of deal. The EU backed down on many things they'd previously claimed were requirements, like the ECJ. And the UK has signed over 60 trade deals in preparation for leaving.
There's a sort of assumption here that might makes right. But the richest countries in the world are all small ones: Switzerland, Singapore, etc. Meanwhile empires spent most of the 20th century collapsing, often due to internal corruption and decay.
I first thought about the problem when I read about the history of the Kashmir region, but actually, it's pretty universal in history. Ask any Mexican about how it is to be the neighbor of a much more powerful polity. Or a Lebanese person. Or an Okinawan. Or an Irish person.
I don't really know the details of the deal, but it seems to me that even if you do get a good deal at one point, the fact is, the UK has very little negotiating power in comparison to the EU. If the EU decided, much like the USA decided with Japan in the 80's, that the UK should sign an unfavourable deal like the Plaza Accord, the UK would be able to do very little but sign it.
Obviously, as you've pointed out, there are a ton of countries that, for some time, step their way around all the pitfalls of this kind of position. But none of them are as large as the UK.
I don't really know the details of the deal, but it seems to me that even if you do get a good deal at one point, the fact is, the UK has very little negotiating power in comparison to the EU. If the EU decided, much like the USA decided with Japan in the 80's, that the UK should sign an unfavourable deal like the Plaza Accord, the UK would be able to do very little but sign it.
Obviously, as you've pointed out, there are a ton of countries that, for some time, step their way around all the pitfalls of this kind of position. But none of them are as large as the UK.
So it turns out that we were able to test this theory EU supporters have about overwhelming negotiating power much faster than anyone anticipated, in the form of bulk purchasing of vaccines.
This is a perfect example where the EU should have totally crushed the UK by using its supposedly superior size and strength, according to size=power theory. And yet what we see is the opposite.
The EU demanded that individual nations buy collectively through the Commission. The Commission is run by diversity hires: half the commissioners had to be women, by demand of von der Leyen. They then moved way too slowly, didn't approve vaccines quickly (and still haven't), didn't order enough and now EU countries are at the back of the queue as a result. The first German to be vaccinated with German technology received their jab in ... the UK. The collective buying operation has since collapsed, with Germany running to Russia to try and acquire some of the Sputnik vaccine.
The whole pathetic affair is documented here:
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-eu-has-botched-its-v...
When it comes to bureaucracies, size does not equal power. Size does not equal benefits. Size equals incompetence, lethargy and internal decay. The EU is run by people who failed upwards their entire careers. They insisted they be given power over vaccines even though the EU has no formal treaty-defined role in healthcare, and then they screwed it up on a massive scale.
This is a perfect example where the EU should have totally crushed the UK by using its supposedly superior size and strength, according to size=power theory. And yet what we see is the opposite.
The EU demanded that individual nations buy collectively through the Commission. The Commission is run by diversity hires: half the commissioners had to be women, by demand of von der Leyen. They then moved way too slowly, didn't approve vaccines quickly (and still haven't), didn't order enough and now EU countries are at the back of the queue as a result. The first German to be vaccinated with German technology received their jab in ... the UK. The collective buying operation has since collapsed, with Germany running to Russia to try and acquire some of the Sputnik vaccine.
The whole pathetic affair is documented here:
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-eu-has-botched-its-v...
When it comes to bureaucracies, size does not equal power. Size does not equal benefits. Size equals incompetence, lethargy and internal decay. The EU is run by people who failed upwards their entire careers. They insisted they be given power over vaccines even though the EU has no formal treaty-defined role in healthcare, and then they screwed it up on a massive scale.
Bolsonaro was not elected because WhatsApp, this was a fake news and the journalist that spread that lie was condoned by spreading fake news.
It surely does.
Social Media did not create division. Internet did not create division. TV did not create division.
They only amplify it. US was divided long before the creation of Internet. That baseline were far higher than other countries. Compared to other countries Internet definitely has its impact, but the baseline was small it isn't as obvious.
Let's put some number into it.
Division Score of US is 100, Internet Usage as a Multiplier, US also has one of the highest Internet usage ( especially with Social Media ) around the world. if you put that as 10. You get a total of 1000.
Division in Country A is 50, Internet usage as 4 ( If you take social media ads revenue split per capita between US and other countries as an indicator ), you have 200.
That is 5x difference.
Social Media did not create division. Internet did not create division. TV did not create division.
They only amplify it. US was divided long before the creation of Internet. That baseline were far higher than other countries. Compared to other countries Internet definitely has its impact, but the baseline was small it isn't as obvious.
Let's put some number into it.
Division Score of US is 100, Internet Usage as a Multiplier, US also has one of the highest Internet usage ( especially with Social Media ) around the world. if you put that as 10. You get a total of 1000.
Division in Country A is 50, Internet usage as 4 ( If you take social media ads revenue split per capita between US and other countries as an indicator ), you have 200.
That is 5x difference.
Maybe it is affected by the number of people on the internet. Back in my initial internet troll days, you could go on pretty much any forum and know you would be treated fairly even if you were a dickhead.
Now you can start whole blood feuds talking about pineapple on pizza.
Now you can start whole blood feuds talking about pineapple on pizza.
My money would be on a more homogeneous culture. Look at somewhere like Australia, the Scandinavian countries or NZ where we pretty much share our attitudes with the most of the others in the country.
As opposed to the US where you're pretty much divided on whether you grew up in the city, suburbs or rural and then again on state. A Californian is wildly different from a Texan, who are again wildly different from a Wisconsonian. The UK is similar with the divide between the north and south of England, the Scots, the Welsh and the Northern Irish.
I think some of it is natural, but it's being amplified with the advent of globalism.
As opposed to the US where you're pretty much divided on whether you grew up in the city, suburbs or rural and then again on state. A Californian is wildly different from a Texan, who are again wildly different from a Wisconsonian. The UK is similar with the divide between the north and south of England, the Scots, the Welsh and the Northern Irish.
I think some of it is natural, but it's being amplified with the advent of globalism.
You had me until the Che, I didn’t get that reference. What’s that?
People on the right think very poorly of Che Guevara with not very strong evidence, so they make fun of people who wear shirts with his face on them
I mean, it's not like he killed gay people and wrote incredibly racist stuff about black people.
But my point was the people that idolise him online and think they're going to carry out a violent revolution are inevitably the same people that tweet abuse at Adele for losing weight.
But my point was the people that idolise him online and think they're going to carry out a violent revolution are inevitably the same people that tweet abuse at Adele for losing weight.
So they dislike an actual Marxist for once.
So it's not the internet but social networks.
Theres not really a difference.
In 1995 it was a Usenet newsgroup, in 2005 it was a vBulletin forum, today it's a Twitter or Facebook community, tomorrow, it will be something else.
Facebook and Twitter get tons of hate because they make money hand over fist and founders/insiders become richer than god, (unlike Usenet or forum sites) but the internet has always been this way.
In 1995 it was a Usenet newsgroup, in 2005 it was a vBulletin forum, today it's a Twitter or Facebook community, tomorrow, it will be something else.
Facebook and Twitter get tons of hate because they make money hand over fist and founders/insiders become richer than god, (unlike Usenet or forum sites) but the internet has always been this way.
Don't forget about Reddit.
Reddit is designed around grouping people in echo chambers and users come to it for this reason. Facebook may still be more impactful due to the sheer volume of users, but I don't think Reddit's impact is negligeable.
Reddit is designed around grouping people in echo chambers and users come to it for this reason. Facebook may still be more impactful due to the sheer volume of users, but I don't think Reddit's impact is negligeable.
There were higher barriers to entry into those groups in the 90s.
This is true, technology certainly has progressed and lowered the barrier to entry for this and many other things, but my point is that the internet is nothing more than a social network.
Also, you might be overestimating how high the barrier to entry was. There were over 200,000 usenet groups at the peak.
Also, you might be overestimating how high the barrier to entry was. There were over 200,000 usenet groups at the peak.
Remember, remember, Eternal September
Yeah, but tech-illiterate baby boomers weren't sharing fake news articles in Usenet groups.
Partly, I guess. The whole internet is a battlefield in the culture war now, though, and even completely unrelated subreddits start banning people who post in the "wrong" places even if they're otherwise following the rules. That and wikipedia is a complete mess now, instead of celebrating what we could build together academics are holding "edit-a-thons" where they tell students to put the lecturer's slant on everything. I have a feeling we might actually be in WW3 and it won't be nuclear, it'll be all about who can distribute their propaganda most effectively.
As an aside, even though HN has a distinct left bias I would say it's definitely one of the fairest forums I've posted on in the last couple of years.
As an aside, even though HN has a distinct left bias I would say it's definitely one of the fairest forums I've posted on in the last couple of years.
The Social Dilemma movie highlights this brilliantly, as does Tristan Harris in his Joe Rohan interview https://youtube.com/watch?v=OaTKaHKCAFg
Internet or population?
I completely agree with you.
Look at what the press was saying about Lincoln before the war. Nothing new these days.
The people do it to themselves. They believe what they want to believe, hear what they want to hear, see what they want to see. This is still largely a free country where there are multiple independent sources of "news", and individuals voluntarily expose themselves or not to whatever they choose. As far as I know, nobody is tied down in a chair and forced to watch certain TV shows or listen to certain radio shows for hours, days, weeks, months at a time, to the exclusion of all else. Maybe in airport terminals, but again, travel is also voluntary.
I find the "How did we arrive to this point" question interesting, because for most of recorded history, the masses of humanity have not been so different than they are today. If anything, "enlightenment" is a relatively rare occurrence.
I find the "How did we arrive to this point" question interesting, because for most of recorded history, the masses of humanity have not been so different than they are today. If anything, "enlightenment" is a relatively rare occurrence.
> They believe what they want to believe, hear what they want to hear, see what they want to see.
> nobody is tied down in a chair and forced to watch certain TV shows or listen to certain radio shows for hours, days, weeks, months at a time, to the exclusion of all else.
Doesn’t this behaviour sound familiar? To me it sounds like addiction. What has changed is not our capacity to become addicted but the willingness of some to exploit this weakness for money and/or power. From the internet outrage generators to the social media outrage amplifiers. The addictiveness of outrage is now fully weaponised by those who have fully succumbed to the addictiveness of power and money. No handbrakes. No filters. No conscience. Lots of self denial, self delusion, self-justification.
The collision of these two addictions will destroy us if not unwound.
EDIT: auto-correct correction.
> nobody is tied down in a chair and forced to watch certain TV shows or listen to certain radio shows for hours, days, weeks, months at a time, to the exclusion of all else.
Doesn’t this behaviour sound familiar? To me it sounds like addiction. What has changed is not our capacity to become addicted but the willingness of some to exploit this weakness for money and/or power. From the internet outrage generators to the social media outrage amplifiers. The addictiveness of outrage is now fully weaponised by those who have fully succumbed to the addictiveness of power and money. No handbrakes. No filters. No conscience. Lots of self denial, self delusion, self-justification.
The collision of these two addictions will destroy us if not unwound.
EDIT: auto-correct correction.
Agree that this is nothing new. Manipulation of people through misinformation has been the rule for a long time. What do you think religion is? Manipulation of people through misinformation to coerce people into behavior which benefits society.
Facebook and twitter allow the manipulation and coercion to happen faster and more efficiently. We weren’t ready for that massive shift in media.
It's honestly not too different than the pandemic we are living through. But instead of a biological virus, it's more of a thought virus. There's a lot of discussion in this thread about whether information should be more or less open, but if anything I think this past few years has shown how ideas such as antivaxx, antimask and election fraud can spread extremely effectively online and infiltrate millions of minds. Reminds me a bit of CGPGrey's video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc
Dawkins coined meme to mean just such a cultural piece of information that disseminates. Just as a gene wants to get to as many people as possible (ie natural, sexual selection) so too do ideas. In this case, the internet has vastly sped it up such that ideas can travel instantaneously.
It's not only that that ideas travel, but also how they evolve and adapt like a virus to be in the most potent and engaging version, not too dissimilar from natural selection. It also is true that they are much easier to spread than to cure (debunk).
Unfortunately, bad ideas also, like that meme should refer to a low-effort combination of some stock picture and some caption conveying puerile humor or a subcultural circle jerk.
That is a big difference right now I think. For most of the Trump presidency, Fox basically acted as his platform, and so I doubt much would have been different over that period if Twitter and Facebook didn't exist. With overturning an election being a bridge too far for them though, without the direct platform of Twitter, I don't see things getting to this point.
One could certainly argue that a system where leaders have a direct platform to address the people is more democratic than one that relies on media gatekeepers, but it does have its downsides.
One could certainly argue that a system where leaders have a direct platform to address the people is more democratic than one that relies on media gatekeepers, but it does have its downsides.
Could those downvoting explain what part you disagree with? I'm making a few claims here, and I'm not sure which of them are disputable/objectionable:
-for most of his presidency, Fox News has echoed President Trump's viewpoint
-therefore for most of that period I'm not confident that his Twitter access has made a huge difference to outcomes (although a number of his comments have certainly been notable).
-recently though, Fox has not been entirely on board with Trump's claims that the election was rigged. They haven't denounced them as strongly as other media, but they haven't wholly endorsed them either.
-So in recent weeks, it appears to be that Trump's direct channel to his supporters via Twitter was instrumental in leading to the current situation.
It appears the majority disagree with me, but I'm not clear where.
-for most of his presidency, Fox News has echoed President Trump's viewpoint
-therefore for most of that period I'm not confident that his Twitter access has made a huge difference to outcomes (although a number of his comments have certainly been notable).
-recently though, Fox has not been entirely on board with Trump's claims that the election was rigged. They haven't denounced them as strongly as other media, but they haven't wholly endorsed them either.
-So in recent weeks, it appears to be that Trump's direct channel to his supporters via Twitter was instrumental in leading to the current situation.
It appears the majority disagree with me, but I'm not clear where.
Fox has both been for and against Trump throughout his presidency. They have, however, been pro-Republican for 2 decades, which is a separate issue.
Older Trump fans are mostly getting their info through FB now. Look at FB's top shared pages/posts. The younger ones are on spread out on FB, reddit, reddit clones.
Older Trump fans are mostly getting their info through FB now. Look at FB's top shared pages/posts. The younger ones are on spread out on FB, reddit, reddit clones.
There's also OAN, Epoch Times, RSBN, Parler, Newsmax, various YouTube vloggers like Millie Weaver, Anthony Brian Logan, Tim Pool, Mark Dice, etc. Quite a lot of conservative/alternative news and commentary out there. The Big Tech platforms include FB and YouTube are despised by pro-Trump folks, because of perceptions of suppression and censorship.
Towards the end of this they discuss the mass manipulation of emotions. Surveillance Capitalism is real.
https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/segments/living-und...
https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/segments/living-und...
I still think mainstream news have a larger role in this, social media are followers. People share news stories as if they are true, with context often omitted, manipulated or outright fabricated. But people still trust their news.
CNN, NYT, Washington Post, HuffPost, Vox, Fox News turned into extremely biased sources of disinformation and blatant propaganda.
E.g. a fabricated story in The Atlantic magazine, citing anonymous sources, was repeated and amplified by all these major media hubs and then further by social media for weeks. It's like a giant wave after wave of misinformation and rumors presented as facts. The burden of evidence apparently no longer applies.
The bias is mostly on the left wing of political spectrum, but the right wing are not too far behind.
CNN, NYT, Washington Post, HuffPost, Vox, Fox News turned into extremely biased sources of disinformation and blatant propaganda.
E.g. a fabricated story in The Atlantic magazine, citing anonymous sources, was repeated and amplified by all these major media hubs and then further by social media for weeks. It's like a giant wave after wave of misinformation and rumors presented as facts. The burden of evidence apparently no longer applies.
The bias is mostly on the left wing of political spectrum, but the right wing are not too far behind.
This IS new in our modern times. Ever since The Second World War this has never occured.
The US yo me now seems to have become close to the comedy movie Idiocracy. You know in the 80s and 90s everyone looked up to the US so much. It was where everyone dreamt of going. I dont know anyone who clings on to that idea now.
The US yo me now seems to have become close to the comedy movie Idiocracy. You know in the 80s and 90s everyone looked up to the US so much. It was where everyone dreamt of going. I dont know anyone who clings on to that idea now.
Yes, horrible things have, at times, been done in the name of religion. But to claim that religion, generally speaking, is all about manipulation through misinformation is wrong.
I'm not even stating horrible things were done. Religion is just a management tool to align people's actions in a way that benefits the society they live in, and help it succeed in competition with other societies.
A lot of the effects of religion have been mostly positive, but in its core it's based on misinformation.
A lot of the effects of religion have been mostly positive, but in its core it's based on misinformation.
Religion is not a tool. It was not designed by anyone. It's an emergent phenomenon, a product of culture.
Sure, some people (especially historically) have treated it like a tool, but that is not religion's fault (religion can't be at fault because it lacks agency). Those people would have seized upon whatever cultural phenomenon that was available to their own political purposes.
Sure, some people (especially historically) have treated it like a tool, but that is not religion's fault (religion can't be at fault because it lacks agency). Those people would have seized upon whatever cultural phenomenon that was available to their own political purposes.
> Religion is not a tool. It was not designed by anyone. It's an emergent phenomenon, a product of culture.
It absolutely was designed. Thoughtfully and explicitly.
You might find it interesting to learn about how the new testament was assembled. Many books did not make it into the final version of the new testament, left on the cutting room floor of history. The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew for instance has a teenage Jesus fighting dragons. Check out the New Testament Apocrypha. [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament_apocrypha
It absolutely was designed. Thoughtfully and explicitly.
You might find it interesting to learn about how the new testament was assembled. Many books did not make it into the final version of the new testament, left on the cutting room floor of history. The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew for instance has a teenage Jesus fighting dragons. Check out the New Testament Apocrypha. [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament_apocrypha
This is such an uninformed view; I am surprised to see it advanced on this forum.
Any scholar of the NT knows that the apochrypha date very late and the cannon is the legitimately oldest extant texts. There is no evidence that earlier texts were excluded. You do know (you probably don't) that the majority of the Pauline epistles are considered to be authentic, by secular atheist scholars, and date to to the middle of the first century right?
Outside of the pauline works, Hebrews is dated to no later than about 45 AD by secular, non believing scholars.
You're advacing a rather tired late 19th century view that just doesn't wash in the light of modern scholarship but was the darling of many 1800s and early 1900s lutherans.
Any scholar of the NT knows that the apochrypha date very late and the cannon is the legitimately oldest extant texts. There is no evidence that earlier texts were excluded. You do know (you probably don't) that the majority of the Pauline epistles are considered to be authentic, by secular atheist scholars, and date to to the middle of the first century right?
Outside of the pauline works, Hebrews is dated to no later than about 45 AD by secular, non believing scholars.
You're advacing a rather tired late 19th century view that just doesn't wash in the light of modern scholarship but was the darling of many 1800s and early 1900s lutherans.
That's not actually the point I'm making. I'm not speaking to the veracity or authenticity of the selected texts. I've no basis to make that judgement. Thanks for sharing that, however, I find this stuff super interesting will dig into that more!
The point I'm making is that the new testament was curated and texts were picked and chosen to advance the interests of those picking and choosing.
The point I'm making is that the new testament was curated and texts were picked and chosen to advance the interests of those picking and choosing.
The claim in question is that religion was designed for the sake of mass manipulation. Because some religions have been shaped and curated deliberately does not mean that religion didn't originally emerge organically as a consequence of shared culture.
Is the New Testament cannon the best example? Why not the Old Testament?
Ancient Jews saw the scriptures as possessing different levels of “cannonicity” - the Books of Moses were “very cannon” while books like Maccabees were “new fangled.”
Christians adopted that view as well. The fights over the Old Testament are still ongoing with different religions organically accepting or rejecting other books every now and then.
The logic behind these still ongoing arguments has much to do with traditions, and little with the actual content.
If we were to reevaluate the Old Testament with fresh eyes, I don’t think anyone would include Ecclesiastes or Job. Too depressing and bizarre.
Not even clear what’s going on or when it’s taking place.
But ultimately there’s a certain logic to these debates - and “we’re designing a religion” isn’t part of it.
Edit: Here’s an excellent example of how “non-designed” the Old Testament is: https://orthodoxwiki.org/Old_Testament_Canon
Ancient Jews saw the scriptures as possessing different levels of “cannonicity” - the Books of Moses were “very cannon” while books like Maccabees were “new fangled.”
Christians adopted that view as well. The fights over the Old Testament are still ongoing with different religions organically accepting or rejecting other books every now and then.
The logic behind these still ongoing arguments has much to do with traditions, and little with the actual content.
If we were to reevaluate the Old Testament with fresh eyes, I don’t think anyone would include Ecclesiastes or Job. Too depressing and bizarre.
Not even clear what’s going on or when it’s taking place.
But ultimately there’s a certain logic to these debates - and “we’re designing a religion” isn’t part of it.
Edit: Here’s an excellent example of how “non-designed” the Old Testament is: https://orthodoxwiki.org/Old_Testament_Canon
Since both you and sibling comment did it:
"Canon" is what's considered truth in a mythos (also a musical form and an electronics company).
"Cannon" is a type of gun.
"Canon" is what's considered truth in a mythos (also a musical form and an electronics company).
"Cannon" is a type of gun.
From the linked page, it looks like this occurred hundreds of years after Christianity started, and after it was already quite well-established, so it doesn't seem accurate to say that the Christian religion was designed, even if the new testament was.
Without venturing further back, which we can, consider that for most people the New Testament is the religion. The Old Testament is a collection of neo-pagan stories, fables and rules for fair play in olden times.
Every society needs rules, ways to enforce these rules, ways to teach these rules, and ways to get people to align to common objectives.
Throughout history societies have used religion as a way to do this. Every society usually had one official religion that was used in this way: ancient egyptians, ancient greece, roman empire (first a religion copied from greece, later replaced by christianity, where the center of christianity was actually moved to rome), european kingsdoms with different versions of their official christian religions, and other countries throughout the world.
It's a pretty simple mechanism: follow our rules, god sees everything, if you don't follow the rules you will be punished, i.e., go to hell, if you follow the rules you will be rewarded, i.e., go to heaven.
We do the same thing with children in the hope that they'll listen to their parents: if you are a good boy/girl you get presents from sinterklaas (santaclause), if you are bad you will be be punished. Dutch santaclaus will take the bad children to spain, which is our version of hell ;-)
Funny thing is that children around the age of 8 will be smart enough to understand that they've been lied to and that santaclaus doesn't exist, whereas with religion some adults never get to this point of enlightenment.
Throughout history societies have used religion as a way to do this. Every society usually had one official religion that was used in this way: ancient egyptians, ancient greece, roman empire (first a religion copied from greece, later replaced by christianity, where the center of christianity was actually moved to rome), european kingsdoms with different versions of their official christian religions, and other countries throughout the world.
It's a pretty simple mechanism: follow our rules, god sees everything, if you don't follow the rules you will be punished, i.e., go to hell, if you follow the rules you will be rewarded, i.e., go to heaven.
We do the same thing with children in the hope that they'll listen to their parents: if you are a good boy/girl you get presents from sinterklaas (santaclause), if you are bad you will be be punished. Dutch santaclaus will take the bad children to spain, which is our version of hell ;-)
Funny thing is that children around the age of 8 will be smart enough to understand that they've been lied to and that santaclaus doesn't exist, whereas with religion some adults never get to this point of enlightenment.
Just to add one more example to the contrary
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea
I take issue with the generalization that all religions are based on misinformation.
What true accounts would you suggest religions are based upon?
Well in modern times today, eye witness testimony still carries much weight, and still being used to determine truth in a court of law. So therefore, the eye witness testimony of hundreds of commoners, including the inner circle of disciples and apostles who saw Jesus Christ in flesh and blood and attest to his miracles in person, plus the third party accounts by roman and jewish independent observers and historians alike.
I have never heard of any true historical proof of the existence of Jesus whatsoever. No eyewitness accounts, no Roman accounts, no Jewish accounts, etc.
And to top it off, his story ends with him rising from the dead!8-))
And to top it off, his story ends with him rising from the dead!8-))
It’s hard to be sure of anything that happened so long ago, but there’s plenty of anecdotal evidence, and scholars almost universally agree that there was at least a person by that name doing things in the area at the time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_for_the_historicity_of... are two good places to start.
Anecdotal evidence? Two thousand years later? "Consider the source!"
The evidence which I described as ‘anecdotal’ starts a mere twenty or thirty years after Jesus’s death, and comes from sources who didn’t have any particular interest in promoting the Christian agenda. It seems that I may be unlikely to convince you, but if you’ve already got a strong opinion on this it might help to come at it from the other direction and start with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory#No_independ... first.
Personally, I don’t really think it matters much either way (the events of a few decades being much less influential than the following two millennia of activities by people who did believe he existed), so I default to taking the word of people who’ve actually studied the matter in depth; but as he was one of several Roman-era Messiah claimants wandering around (we know of at least two others, and there were probably more whose names never made it into the histories we have) it seems reasonable that the group which happened to catch on would have also originally coalesced around an actual person.
Personally, I don’t really think it matters much either way (the events of a few decades being much less influential than the following two millennia of activities by people who did believe he existed), so I default to taking the word of people who’ve actually studied the matter in depth; but as he was one of several Roman-era Messiah claimants wandering around (we know of at least two others, and there were probably more whose names never made it into the histories we have) it seems reasonable that the group which happened to catch on would have also originally coalesced around an actual person.
You can be easily disabused of this ignorant view by reading the wikipedia page for the historicity of jesus. Jesus mysticism is a fringe, crackpot view in historical scholarship. People adopt it because it suits their priors not because it has the weight of literally any scholarship or investigation behind it. It is , simply put, a ridiculous proposal in the light of what is known about the NT.
My understanding (from reading a book called "who wrote the Bible") is scholars generally agree Jesus existed, but out of the 5 main objective criteria for "did a character exist", he only satisfies 3 of the 5. IIRC, the fact that he plays so prominently in modern life acts as an effect size: in the 3 categories he can be confirmed, he is off the charts.
So it is generally accepted he existed, even if the criteria used to judge other historical characters is loosened for JC.
Edit - but please try to not say things like "ignorant" or "disabused" unless you meant to attack OP. Those are pretty loaded words for a collegial discussion.
So it is generally accepted he existed, even if the criteria used to judge other historical characters is loosened for JC.
Edit - but please try to not say things like "ignorant" or "disabused" unless you meant to attack OP. Those are pretty loaded words for a collegial discussion.
Even bart erhman has published in his hostoricity
Existence of historical Jesus has been well established. First century Jewish historian Josephus and Roman historian Tacitus wrote about him... For eyewitness, you can find first person account in the New Testaments.
> First century Jewish historian Josephus
Two mentions. One is almost certainly fabricated, or at least heavily rewritten by later Christians.
> For eyewitness, you can find first person account in the New Testaments.
The Gospels aren't first person accounts. The closest you get to first person accounts of Jesus in the NT are brief mentions of Paul's conversion experiences in his epistles. The Gospels probably draw on first person accounts to some extent, but they themselves aren't first person accounts.
There's a very strong case to be made for the historicity of Jesus, but you make a misleading one by leaving out some very important context regarding Josephus and mischaracterizing the accounts of Jesus in the NT.
Two mentions. One is almost certainly fabricated, or at least heavily rewritten by later Christians.
> For eyewitness, you can find first person account in the New Testaments.
The Gospels aren't first person accounts. The closest you get to first person accounts of Jesus in the NT are brief mentions of Paul's conversion experiences in his epistles. The Gospels probably draw on first person accounts to some extent, but they themselves aren't first person accounts.
There's a very strong case to be made for the historicity of Jesus, but you make a misleading one by leaving out some very important context regarding Josephus and mischaracterizing the accounts of Jesus in the NT.
> No eyewitness accounts, no Roman accounts, no Jewish accounts, etc.
debate the authenticity all you want, but what exactly do you think the new testament is?
debate the authenticity all you want, but what exactly do you think the new testament is?
The criteria with which you dismiss the historical Jesus is also applicable to any other historical figure of antiquity. By your measure, no one without a photograph, video, or audio recording can be counted as anything other than a myth. The historical Jesus is very real (as is His Divinity, but that is beyond the scope of this response).
Jesus is ahistorical - no documents, no records. Everything about him written long after he died.
In contrast Pontius Pilate is historical - there are extant documents with his name and title.
Simply b/c Pontius Pilate was real doesn't mean Jesus Christ was real. And it certainly doesn't mean he rose from the dead!
In contrast Pontius Pilate is historical - there are extant documents with his name and title.
Simply b/c Pontius Pilate was real doesn't mean Jesus Christ was real. And it certainly doesn't mean he rose from the dead!
So you agree then that documented eye witness reports of non-Christian gods prove that those gods also exist? That the Christian god is just one of many?
Also, who was there to witness god creating the universe? Any eye witness account of that? And if not surely that part of the bible is just made up?
What religious accounts can you prove are not true?
The default state of a human is an agnostic. If you are born and nobody tells you the Good Word, you live your entire life without religion. If someone comes to you one day and tells you a man lives in the clouds with a deep-seated interest in your sex life, the onus is then on you to convince the agnostic. The burden of proof is on you.
If I told you the story of our lord and savior Sauron, could you prove to me it's not true? Could you prove to me any of the Lord of the Rings didn't happen?
We don't generally require proving a negative.
If I told you the story of our lord and savior Sauron, could you prove to me it's not true? Could you prove to me any of the Lord of the Rings didn't happen?
We don't generally require proving a negative.
>The default state of a human is an agnostic. If you are born and nobody tells you the Good Word, you live your entire life without religion.
There are some interesting arguments that we evolved to become hard-wired for religion. Fear during early evolution was probably the driver for this, all the earthquakes, volcanoes, hurricanes, death by germs etc. We invented religion as a means to explain stuff - the solar cycle, disease, etc, etc. Turns out those explanations were wrong, but our biology is still the same ..
There are some interesting arguments that we evolved to become hard-wired for religion. Fear during early evolution was probably the driver for this, all the earthquakes, volcanoes, hurricanes, death by germs etc. We invented religion as a means to explain stuff - the solar cycle, disease, etc, etc. Turns out those explanations were wrong, but our biology is still the same ..
I'm with you there, I believe humans did evolve a capacity for religiosity. I'm pretty sure that a child that grows up on an island however isn't going to spontaneously regenerate the new testament haha.
No but they will believe some form of religion. Christianity and others survived because they were just able to compete against other religions in that area and time period.
Look at the context of this discussion. The claim was made that all religion is based on misinformation.
I argued that that claim is wrong.
Someone responded saying, "find one true account that religion is based on". I responded asking whether they could find an account that is proven false.
The context here is important--I'm not arguing my belief in religion, or that you must believe in religion. I'm arguing that not all religion is based on misinformation. I brought up my question to point out that his question is irrelevant, and he can't prove anything to be false, therefore he can't prove that it's all misinformation.
If I see a bird fly over my head, then claim to you, "a bird flew over my head", I can't prove it. Neither can you disprove it. That doesn't mean it didn't happen, or that my claim isn't real, or that my claim is misinformation.
~2000 years ago people witnessed Christ die and some claim they saw Him come back to life. They wrote about it. Those letters still exist today. I agree that this information alone is not enough to justify someone changing their life to believe the letters--merely existing doesn't "prove" that what's in them is true. But pretend for a second it really did happen. What evidence/proof do you think you'd find that could prove it?
This is honestly getting watered down a lot though, with people jumping in without reading everything. I don't blame them--I do the same on HN.
If someone wishes to discuss why I personally believe, and what I believe in, that's a different thing altogether that I'm happy to discuss but not here on HN.
I argued that that claim is wrong.
Someone responded saying, "find one true account that religion is based on". I responded asking whether they could find an account that is proven false.
The context here is important--I'm not arguing my belief in religion, or that you must believe in religion. I'm arguing that not all religion is based on misinformation. I brought up my question to point out that his question is irrelevant, and he can't prove anything to be false, therefore he can't prove that it's all misinformation.
If I see a bird fly over my head, then claim to you, "a bird flew over my head", I can't prove it. Neither can you disprove it. That doesn't mean it didn't happen, or that my claim isn't real, or that my claim is misinformation.
~2000 years ago people witnessed Christ die and some claim they saw Him come back to life. They wrote about it. Those letters still exist today. I agree that this information alone is not enough to justify someone changing their life to believe the letters--merely existing doesn't "prove" that what's in them is true. But pretend for a second it really did happen. What evidence/proof do you think you'd find that could prove it?
This is honestly getting watered down a lot though, with people jumping in without reading everything. I don't blame them--I do the same on HN.
If someone wishes to discuss why I personally believe, and what I believe in, that's a different thing altogether that I'm happy to discuss but not here on HN.
I'd argue that the problem with this analogy is that a bird flying overhead is something we know is possible and indeed common. According to all scientific knowledge and evidence, resurrection is not possible. So absent significant evidence, it's not logical to believe that this happened. We also know that religion has historically provided numerous benefits to societies, allowing for trust, cooperation, and trade in societies that predate effective government. So it is logical to assume that such belief systems would develop, and that societies that developed them would prevail over those that didn't, even in the absence of supernatural evidence.
Given that religion contradicts what we know about the physical world, and that its existence is explained without reliance on the supernatural, it's not logical to believe its supernatural claims.
Given that religion contradicts what we know about the physical world, and that its existence is explained without reliance on the supernatural, it's not logical to believe its supernatural claims.
So if something cannot be observed by you, within your 15-100 years of life (assuming you fit within that range), that simply means it's impossible for it to have occurred? And that any claims otherwise are misinformation?
No one claims that someone is resurrected every day. The claims of Christianity are that it occurred once, and that it was a miracle.
The thought that it's impossible for something to have occurred unless it's commonly overserved isn't sound. There is no such requirement. There are plenty of rare events that occur, with and without scientific explanation.
Update: Perhaps here's what we're missing. There is information, misinformation, and then there's claims that cannot be proven or disproved. I do not believe that all things are false until proven true. I believe that Christianity, and many other religions, can be neither proven or disproven using modern science. It is neither misinformation or information. It is a belief.
No one claims that someone is resurrected every day. The claims of Christianity are that it occurred once, and that it was a miracle.
The thought that it's impossible for something to have occurred unless it's commonly overserved isn't sound. There is no such requirement. There are plenty of rare events that occur, with and without scientific explanation.
Update: Perhaps here's what we're missing. There is information, misinformation, and then there's claims that cannot be proven or disproved. I do not believe that all things are false until proven true. I believe that Christianity, and many other religions, can be neither proven or disproven using modern science. It is neither misinformation or information. It is a belief.
You are making the case that if I cannot disprove any religious text, then by default, it's information and not misinformation even though it flies in the face of observable reality. That isn't really how we look at things.
Everything is misinformation until proven otherwise.
The bigger and grander the claim, the higher the burden of proof. With a bird, the claim ain't exactly grand, and I'm willing to take you at your word. On the other hand if you told me a bird flew over your head, turned into a plane and wrote "I'm Your Lord and Savior" in skywriting, well, I'm gonna need more than just your word on it.
Everything is misinformation until proven otherwise.
The bigger and grander the claim, the higher the burden of proof. With a bird, the claim ain't exactly grand, and I'm willing to take you at your word. On the other hand if you told me a bird flew over your head, turned into a plane and wrote "I'm Your Lord and Savior" in skywriting, well, I'm gonna need more than just your word on it.
See my response to tempestn.
It doesn't really matter if those events long time ago actually happened, and were interpreted correctly at the time, with the knowledge people had at the time.
What matters is do you today believe heaven and hell are real, and will you go to either one when you die? Will you be judged by some know-it-all entity, and what rules does (s)he judge you by? Do you need to follow the roman, greek, egyptian, viking, moslim, christian, catholic, protestant, ..., rules to go to heaven? And if you follow the christian rules, and god turns out to be allah, will you go to hell?
What matters is do you today believe heaven and hell are real, and will you go to either one when you die? Will you be judged by some know-it-all entity, and what rules does (s)he judge you by? Do you need to follow the roman, greek, egyptian, viking, moslim, christian, catholic, protestant, ..., rules to go to heaven? And if you follow the christian rules, and god turns out to be allah, will you go to hell?
[deleted]
What does it mean to “have faith”?
Having faith can be applied generally. To me, this is the philosophy of Christ that taught me the most. Do you have faith in humanity? Do you have hope that people will choose goodness over wickedness? I do. History has taught me that humans move forward. I have faith in humanity that progress will continue. I believe that righteousness and justice can be the fuel to drive us forward. If I didn't have any faith what would I have? If everyone was a cynic, where would we be? Certainly much worse off than we see ourselves today.
My point is not that having faith is wrong or bad, rather, that to believe in the kinds of myths many religions espouse requires faith.
It is impossible to believe in the teachings of the Bible without having faith. I'm sure you bring an equal amount of faith when reading other stories. You don't? Why not?
It is impossible to believe in the teachings of the Bible without having faith. I'm sure you bring an equal amount of faith when reading other stories. You don't? Why not?
Belief or trust in something. Oftentimes that something is not something proven using scientific methods.
That's exactly right. You can see how well the above compliments misinformation right?
Go ahead and read any religious text (I've read many!). Nearly every culture has one or many myths. Do you believe them to be fact? Or do you only believe your religious text to be true? And if so, why?
I don't mean to take a stance against religion in general. I agree with the above commenter that the impact of religion in a general sense does seem to be positive! A shared mythos can be a very powerful way of building community. This can have very real positive affects on a population, and, depending on that mythos, on an individual. But to suggest that religion doesn't require "faith" (i.e. believing in something despite no evidence) is... well... naïve.
Go ahead and read any religious text (I've read many!). Nearly every culture has one or many myths. Do you believe them to be fact? Or do you only believe your religious text to be true? And if so, why?
I don't mean to take a stance against religion in general. I agree with the above commenter that the impact of religion in a general sense does seem to be positive! A shared mythos can be a very powerful way of building community. This can have very real positive affects on a population, and, depending on that mythos, on an individual. But to suggest that religion doesn't require "faith" (i.e. believing in something despite no evidence) is... well... naïve.
Is something false merely because it can't be proven?
I've gone through other forks on this thread. Here's my conclusion. No religion that I'm aware of can be proven or disproved based on scientific fact or observation. Yet that does not mean they are all false or true. One could very well be true. Or they could be false. But simply because we can't prove it doesn't mean it must be false. You cannot claim "misinformation" without proving its false. I cannot (and am not) claiming it "information" without proven it true. Its neither.
There is a different question to ask, which is how and why people choose to believe in religion provided that they cannot be proven. I have my reasons, my personal evidences, that have led me to believe my religion is true. I also believe that you can learn for yourself whether or not my religion is true. If you wish to learn more about my experience and what has led me to believe, I'll share it in a venue that encourages respect and understanding. Unfortunately online forums rarely provide that.
I've gone through other forks on this thread. Here's my conclusion. No religion that I'm aware of can be proven or disproved based on scientific fact or observation. Yet that does not mean they are all false or true. One could very well be true. Or they could be false. But simply because we can't prove it doesn't mean it must be false. You cannot claim "misinformation" without proving its false. I cannot (and am not) claiming it "information" without proven it true. Its neither.
There is a different question to ask, which is how and why people choose to believe in religion provided that they cannot be proven. I have my reasons, my personal evidences, that have led me to believe my religion is true. I also believe that you can learn for yourself whether or not my religion is true. If you wish to learn more about my experience and what has led me to believe, I'll share it in a venue that encourages respect and understanding. Unfortunately online forums rarely provide that.
I am honestly not trying to argue whether one specific myth is true or not. You are missing my point.
There are many myths from many cultures that seek describe where we came from or how we ought to live. For example, nearly every culture has some story about the creation of man/the earth. They all cannot possibly be true. I'm sure we can agree that man/the earth wasn't created as many times as there are stories about it.
So you are making claims about truth! How can you square the above with your belief in your own religion using the thought paradigm you outlined above? By claiming that your creation story is true (or as you may put it, "not proven false") you are also making a claim that all others are not true. A claim you have just argued cannot be made... It's all a fallacy.
The most interesting question worth answering is: Why do you believe the myths that you do?
Statistically speaking, the answer is because it is the one your parents believed. It's hard to explain away the eerie correlation between a person's religion and where they were born. Why is it that a child born in the Middle-East is so likely to follow Islam, a child in the West Christianity, in India Hindu, etc. etc.? It's almost as if these religions are a product of the people, not some greater truth.
And for what it's worth, I see no meaningful difference between something that is false and something that cannot be proven to be true:
"There are 2,145,124,152 birds in flight above the earth right now." - do you believe me?
"Jesus Christ just came down and told me personally that Hindu is the one true religion" - do you believe me?
"I just saw a red 2018 Toyota 4Runner drive past my house" - do you believe me?
"One of the above claims it true" - do you believe me?
What role does "faith" play when appraising the above questions? Are you applying "faith" in the same way to the above as you do to your religion? Probably not.
There are many myths from many cultures that seek describe where we came from or how we ought to live. For example, nearly every culture has some story about the creation of man/the earth. They all cannot possibly be true. I'm sure we can agree that man/the earth wasn't created as many times as there are stories about it.
So you are making claims about truth! How can you square the above with your belief in your own religion using the thought paradigm you outlined above? By claiming that your creation story is true (or as you may put it, "not proven false") you are also making a claim that all others are not true. A claim you have just argued cannot be made... It's all a fallacy.
The most interesting question worth answering is: Why do you believe the myths that you do?
Statistically speaking, the answer is because it is the one your parents believed. It's hard to explain away the eerie correlation between a person's religion and where they were born. Why is it that a child born in the Middle-East is so likely to follow Islam, a child in the West Christianity, in India Hindu, etc. etc.? It's almost as if these religions are a product of the people, not some greater truth.
And for what it's worth, I see no meaningful difference between something that is false and something that cannot be proven to be true:
"There are 2,145,124,152 birds in flight above the earth right now." - do you believe me?
"Jesus Christ just came down and told me personally that Hindu is the one true religion" - do you believe me?
"I just saw a red 2018 Toyota 4Runner drive past my house" - do you believe me?
"One of the above claims it true" - do you believe me?
What role does "faith" play when appraising the above questions? Are you applying "faith" in the same way to the above as you do to your religion? Probably not.
I agree, I cannot see how all the stories could be true. I believe one to be true, and the rest to be false. Does that mean I have scientific proof that one is true? No, and I have never claimed to. Does that mean I'm asking you to believe what I believe, simply because I believe it? No, I'd never do that. But this is beyond the point.
My arguments on this thread have been about the claim that all religion is based on "misinformation". I feel a bit like a broken record here, but in order for something to be misinformation it must be proven false. Claims can either be proven true, proven false, or simply not proven true or false. There are 3 states--not 2. Religions fall into the last category, where the claims have not been proven or disproved. It's not misinformation until it's proven false. It's also not information until it's proven true. Which gets back to the key differences between faith and scientific fact. Faith is belief in something not (yet) proven true or false. Belief in science is based on something science has proven true or false. You're trying to take the way you approach science, likely because it's what you've been surrounded by in your recent life, and force it upon religious views. It doesn't work, because the basis for faith in a religion implies that the thing isn't proven using science.
> Statistically speaking, the answer is because it is the one your parents believed. It's hard to explain away the eerie correlation between a person's religion and where they were born. Why is it that a child born in the Middle-East is so likely to follow Islam, a child in the West Christianity, in India Hindu, etc. etc.? It's almost as if these religions are a product of the people, not some greater truth.
What environment have you been raised in? Western world, analytically educated? Atheism is a religion. It's the belief that there is no higher power--but it's still a belief... based on faith (not science). Science has neither proven or disproved the existence of God. Agnostic is also a religion based on faith. Whatever your actual beliefs or lack of beliefs are, it's not based on scientific fact.
The word "myth" implies the account is proven false (through science). It's not accurate to use, unless you're able to prove the religious accounts false.
I'm not asking you to believe me. I'm not asking you to believe in my religion. I'm simply stating that claiming all religions are based on misinformation cannot be done until they're all proven false.
You've made great leaps about why I believe without understanding me, my faith, or the process I went through (and continue going through) to obtain and keep my faith. You can make as many assumptions as you want, but they haven't been accurate and likely won't be if you continue to do so.
> What role does "faith" play when appraising the above questions? Are you applying "faith" in the same way to the above as you do to your religion? Probably not.
I do not have faith in any of the claims you've made, no matter how reasonable. I'm not arguing that any one of them is true or false.
> The most interesting question worth answering is: Why do you believe the myths that you do?
I agree, this is the more interesting question. But it's not something I wish to discuss on a public forum. It's deeply personal. If you are genuinely interested, I'd happily share it in a different venue.
My arguments on this thread have been about the claim that all religion is based on "misinformation". I feel a bit like a broken record here, but in order for something to be misinformation it must be proven false. Claims can either be proven true, proven false, or simply not proven true or false. There are 3 states--not 2. Religions fall into the last category, where the claims have not been proven or disproved. It's not misinformation until it's proven false. It's also not information until it's proven true. Which gets back to the key differences between faith and scientific fact. Faith is belief in something not (yet) proven true or false. Belief in science is based on something science has proven true or false. You're trying to take the way you approach science, likely because it's what you've been surrounded by in your recent life, and force it upon religious views. It doesn't work, because the basis for faith in a religion implies that the thing isn't proven using science.
> Statistically speaking, the answer is because it is the one your parents believed. It's hard to explain away the eerie correlation between a person's religion and where they were born. Why is it that a child born in the Middle-East is so likely to follow Islam, a child in the West Christianity, in India Hindu, etc. etc.? It's almost as if these religions are a product of the people, not some greater truth.
What environment have you been raised in? Western world, analytically educated? Atheism is a religion. It's the belief that there is no higher power--but it's still a belief... based on faith (not science). Science has neither proven or disproved the existence of God. Agnostic is also a religion based on faith. Whatever your actual beliefs or lack of beliefs are, it's not based on scientific fact.
The word "myth" implies the account is proven false (through science). It's not accurate to use, unless you're able to prove the religious accounts false.
I'm not asking you to believe me. I'm not asking you to believe in my religion. I'm simply stating that claiming all religions are based on misinformation cannot be done until they're all proven false.
You've made great leaps about why I believe without understanding me, my faith, or the process I went through (and continue going through) to obtain and keep my faith. You can make as many assumptions as you want, but they haven't been accurate and likely won't be if you continue to do so.
> What role does "faith" play when appraising the above questions? Are you applying "faith" in the same way to the above as you do to your religion? Probably not.
I do not have faith in any of the claims you've made, no matter how reasonable. I'm not arguing that any one of them is true or false.
> The most interesting question worth answering is: Why do you believe the myths that you do?
I agree, this is the more interesting question. But it's not something I wish to discuss on a public forum. It's deeply personal. If you are genuinely interested, I'd happily share it in a different venue.
I’d say faith can be belief in anything you haven’t seen yourself, including thing done through scientific methods. I have to have faith in scientist that they know what they are doing and correctly reported their results and in the committees that review them.
I think it may be a natural human condition to be a part of a religion. But these days, politics has become the religion, instead of in the past, the religion became the politics....
I’m not sure I totally buy it but stunning parallels: https://us-central1-spirit-fish-function.cloudfunctions.net/...
I'm unsure why this site is asking for access to my Google account.
I suspect this is the same article: https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/revenge-of-...
I suspect this is the same article: https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/revenge-of-...
i sometimes wonder if karl marx were alive today if he would say that mass media is the opium of the masses..
Religion is a powerful force, so it can be used to manage people. But it is far more than that.
> to claim that religion, generally speaking, is all about manipulation through misinformation is wrong
This claim only holds water because -- in theory -- there is no precise definition of what "religion" is. In practice, it's a set of rules and rituals to follow (literal manipulation) on penalty of an unprovable/unfalsifiable entity or system punishing you (misinformation).
So, okay, "generally speaking" it's not about that. Now show me that the majority of religions don't boil down to manipulation and misinformation.
This claim only holds water because -- in theory -- there is no precise definition of what "religion" is. In practice, it's a set of rules and rituals to follow (literal manipulation) on penalty of an unprovable/unfalsifiable entity or system punishing you (misinformation).
So, okay, "generally speaking" it's not about that. Now show me that the majority of religions don't boil down to manipulation and misinformation.
Truth is required to act freely. Freedom requires knowledge, and in order to act freely in the world, you need to know what the world is and know what you’re doing. You only know what you’re doing if you have access to the truth. So freedom requires truth, and so to smash freedom you must smash truth.
Part of what fascist politics does is get people to disassociate from reality, there is no truth, there is only opinions. You get them to sign on to this fantasy version of reality, and from then on their anchor isn’t the world around them — it’s the leader and his opinion.
Part of interview on Fascism with Jason Stanley Professor of Philosophy at Yale University.
Part of what fascist politics does is get people to disassociate from reality, there is no truth, there is only opinions. You get them to sign on to this fantasy version of reality, and from then on their anchor isn’t the world around them — it’s the leader and his opinion.
Part of interview on Fascism with Jason Stanley Professor of Philosophy at Yale University.
If you break down religion to be an organized belief system or doctrine, religion can exist without being called a religion.
Religion is no more misinformation than a particular Philosophy is misinformation; a perspective on reality. Even the meta-philosophical act (philosophy of philosophy) of having an ontology of philosophy or any form of abstraction/reification, is an organized form of how one views the world.
Religion is no more misinformation than a particular Philosophy is misinformation; a perspective on reality. Even the meta-philosophical act (philosophy of philosophy) of having an ontology of philosophy or any form of abstraction/reification, is an organized form of how one views the world.
You’re still able to employ critical thinking. I’d say the lack of critical thinking has led us here.
*Benefits a very small part of society, you mean
Both. Organized religion has always been an instrument of control and fostered inequality, but it also glued societies together and provided an incentive structure that promoted selfless behavior.
[deleted]
What do you think politics is? What do you think morality is?
What a tired old marxist line this is; And one never applied to say, the political theory of marx himself
What a tired old marxist line this is; And one never applied to say, the political theory of marx himself
School. Nobody is tied down to a chair but children are challenged to think critically on a daily basis.
A good education should produce a balanced and well rounded adult. I teach CS ages 14 to 18 and all teachers have pastoral care responsibilities. I teach much more than just the curriculum. Some lessons — tutorials — are dedicated to general education.
A highlight from last term was tackling the question “is being gay the same as being a paedophile?” It was asked earnestly and in context. It was my pleasure to answer, ask them more questions, and get them to think about consent and what is and isn’t ok for society to ban.
A good education should produce a balanced and well rounded adult. I teach CS ages 14 to 18 and all teachers have pastoral care responsibilities. I teach much more than just the curriculum. Some lessons — tutorials — are dedicated to general education.
A highlight from last term was tackling the question “is being gay the same as being a paedophile?” It was asked earnestly and in context. It was my pleasure to answer, ask them more questions, and get them to think about consent and what is and isn’t ok for society to ban.
We talk about filter bubbles of information, but there are also filter bubbles of association. It is easier than ever to surround yourself with people who agree with you about almost everything.
People don't simply consume information and form ideas like a summary-generator. There's a strong component of imitation and rehearsal that is disrupted when the patterns of engagement with other people are drastically changed.
People don't simply consume information and form ideas like a summary-generator. There's a strong component of imitation and rehearsal that is disrupted when the patterns of engagement with other people are drastically changed.
I agree with this "bubble of association" idea, and it doesn't have to start out political. Its just easier than ever to surround yourself with people like you. We have all kinds of segregation in who we live near, and who we associate with. The fact that its less about race than at anytime in history makes it easy for this segregation to hide itself. I live in a red state, but during the election my kids counted the signs in neighbors yards, it was 3:1 Biden. I work in tech, and so do most people in my well off, blue neighborhood. We are racially diverse, but segregated from people who don't think like us. I bet most people in here work at companies that are predominantly liberal or libertarian. I bet most people live in well off neighborhoods surrounded by college educated, worldly people with very little to fear from the world.
[deleted]
But when media organizations peddling outright lies are allowed to call it "news", and are treated as being just as valid as genuine journalistic organizations by the various institutions of our country, it is, for want of a better term, no longer a "free market" of news.
I would argue that this is the result of a free market of news. These media organizations only exist because they tell people what they want to hear. There's a huge market for that. In order to peddle anything, you have to get people to listen first, and you can't take listeners for granted in a society where the media is not controlled by the government.
If only it were that simple, that it's just serving people what they want. Running with that idea for a second, isn't what people want partly a function of propaganda, brainwashing and so on. The narratives that we're fed are largely those of the rich and powerful or, in the case of fringe views on social media, those of often unqualified people at best (and lunatics at worst). The metaphor of a market of people autonomously choosing news obfuscates a much more complex reality about why so many people want to hear nonsense or views that undermine their own interests?
You're correct that the reality is much more complex. To expand, I would say that people are indeed susceptible to propaganda, but only propaganda of a certain kind. It has to reinforce their preexisting biases. You can't just force any propaganda on any arbitrary person, that's not going to work. That's why I say people do it to themselves. They come to trust the public figures who tell them specifically what they specifically want to hear, and then this trust and good feeling can be exploited for other purposes.
That's not unique to any one political party. All political partisans are susceptible to propaganda, but only party-specific propaganda. There are different forms of propaganda on different sides that would never work on the other side.
That's not unique to any one political party. All political partisans are susceptible to propaganda, but only party-specific propaganda. There are different forms of propaganda on different sides that would never work on the other side.
Mm, I think that's true in some circumstances.
However, if people are put in a situation where the only information they have access to—or the only information given an official sanction—is the propaganda, then whether or not it conflicts with their existing biases, they're pretty unlikely to be able to refute it. Especially not over a long period of time.
Also worth noting that saying people "do it to themselves" only applies to adults: the adults who are "doing it to themselves" are, in fact, doing exactly what I described above to their children: providing an "official sanction" to only the propaganda that agrees with their biases, thus ensuring that their children grow up molded in the same way, with no easy way to make an informed choice for themselves.
However, if people are put in a situation where the only information they have access to—or the only information given an official sanction—is the propaganda, then whether or not it conflicts with their existing biases, they're pretty unlikely to be able to refute it. Especially not over a long period of time.
Also worth noting that saying people "do it to themselves" only applies to adults: the adults who are "doing it to themselves" are, in fact, doing exactly what I described above to their children: providing an "official sanction" to only the propaganda that agrees with their biases, thus ensuring that their children grow up molded in the same way, with no easy way to make an informed choice for themselves.
> the adults who are "doing it to themselves" are, in fact, doing exactly what I described above to their children
To an extent, yes. However, there are a number of mitigating factors. (1) Individual parents vary widely in their persuasive skill. (2) If there are 2 parents, those 2 don't necessarily agree in their beliefs, which means mixed messages for the children. (3) The child's friends, neighbors, schools, and community are also important influences on the child. (4) Genetics guarantees individual differences regardless. (5) Kids have a natural tendency to rebel against their parents, regardless of the parent's beliefs.
A lot of kids turn out a lot like their parents. And a lot of kids don't. Some even become the opposite of their parents. So the parental influence is definitely a factor, but it's not inescapable.
In any case, most kids pay very little attention to politics or "hard news" before they reach voting age (or even after). The news consumption itself tends to occur mainly in adulthood.
To an extent, yes. However, there are a number of mitigating factors. (1) Individual parents vary widely in their persuasive skill. (2) If there are 2 parents, those 2 don't necessarily agree in their beliefs, which means mixed messages for the children. (3) The child's friends, neighbors, schools, and community are also important influences on the child. (4) Genetics guarantees individual differences regardless. (5) Kids have a natural tendency to rebel against their parents, regardless of the parent's beliefs.
A lot of kids turn out a lot like their parents. And a lot of kids don't. Some even become the opposite of their parents. So the parental influence is definitely a factor, but it's not inescapable.
In any case, most kids pay very little attention to politics or "hard news" before they reach voting age (or even after). The news consumption itself tends to occur mainly in adulthood.
There are many good points in this thread, which led me to this realization: kids are indeed not very interested in national politics, but they are very attuned to the social politics of their peers, which can be pretty cliquish, isolating and devisive.
The propaganda that we are concerned with here deliberately seeks to trigger these childish responses in adults. If you go around telling people that they are entitled to something which these other people are taking from them, you will get some disciples regardless of whether there is any merit to the claim. It is like a mountainside in snow: you will get many small avalanches, but now and again a big one will let loose and sweep everything away.
The propaganda that we are concerned with here deliberately seeks to trigger these childish responses in adults. If you go around telling people that they are entitled to something which these other people are taking from them, you will get some disciples regardless of whether there is any merit to the claim. It is like a mountainside in snow: you will get many small avalanches, but now and again a big one will let loose and sweep everything away.
It is the result of the free market of news. Bad news drives out good, just as bad money drives out good.
(Bad as in quality, not as in pessimistic. Bad meaning emotional and inciteful rather than informative and constructive. Humans have proven they respond more to the former.)
(Bad as in quality, not as in pessimistic. Bad meaning emotional and inciteful rather than informative and constructive. Humans have proven they respond more to the former.)
A true free market requires full information—in this case, that means the ability to determine how trustworthy the "news" being provided by a particular organization is. And there's a big, big difference between an organization that presents genuine facts with a slant (though that can be problematic enough), or one that tries in good faith to provide genuine facts but sometimes fails, either due to bad actors within or simple incompetence, and one that knowingly presents verifiably false information.
"Free market" does not just mean "everyone (with enough money) gets to provide whatever they want, and call it whatever they want, and it's up to ordinary people to figure out what's reliable and what's not."
"Free market" does not just mean "everyone (with enough money) gets to provide whatever they want, and call it whatever they want, and it's up to ordinary people to figure out what's reliable and what's not."
The genuine sources have issues like bias or sloppy investigating, that leads to outright lies too. For years the media was representing the gender wage gap as being a man and women in the same job with all attributes other than gender being equal (even Obama said this during a state of the union). That clearly isn't what the BLS study says (difference in occupations, in part, drive the wage gap on an aggregate level).
https://www.forbes.com/sites/karlynborysenko/2020/03/31/grea...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/karlynborysenko/2020/03/31/grea...
Yes, all other things being equal including level of experience, a woman makes about 98% as a man.
But how many women are afforded the opportunities to attain the job and life experience it takes to make as much as a man at the same job?
Once again -- stop thinking equality and start thinking equity.
But how many women are afforded the opportunities to attain the job and life experience it takes to make as much as a man at the same job?
Once again -- stop thinking equality and start thinking equity.
Considering women obtain degrees at a higher rate than men, I'd say there's just as much opportunity.
If you are alluding to family constraints, having a family is a choice. I'm a man with a family and I have seen many opportunities disappear as a result of my decision to have a family.
If you are alluding to family constraints, having a family is a choice. I'm a man with a family and I have seen many opportunities disappear as a result of my decision to have a family.
The U.S. lost 140,000 jobs last month. All of them -- 100% -- were held by women.
Women simply do not have the same opportunities that men do in this country.
Women simply do not have the same opportunities that men do in this country.
News is basically a cheap form of entertainment nowadays. The clue really is in the name, it's just "new stuff" and humans seem hardwired to always want to be consuming "new stuff".
People should be held accountable for what they say on media platforms, and lies shouldn't be allowed.. but i can't see that even happening.
Held accountable by whom? The government? Which is controlled roughly half the time by a party which you probably disagree with vehemently?
In countries in which the truth is defended as OP demands clowns don't tend it to make it into government in the first place, but I see your point it's hard to see how the US gets out of this cycle
Didn't Iceland literally have a clown for a mayor or something?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%B3n_Gnarr
Comedian technically, but eh.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%B3n_Gnarr
Comedian technically, but eh.
Ukraine as well.
Which countries?
"lies shouldn't be allowed"
Uh huh, and who decides what is a lie?
There is a term called "slippery slope" and free speech may have been its founding issue.
Courts. Even USA has laws against libel and slander, it's not like the status quo is that you can just say whatever you want with no fear of consequences.
But who’s paying for verifying free speech full of lies? Right now the price for no verification is viewable on all news channels.
> Uh huh, and who decides what is a lie?
Well obviously that would be unelected “fact checkers” who aren’t held accountable for anything and suspiciously seem to find nearly everything said by people in one particular political party to be “pants on fire” lies.
Well obviously that would be unelected “fact checkers” who aren’t held accountable for anything and suspiciously seem to find nearly everything said by people in one particular political party to be “pants on fire” lies.
> unelected “fact checkers”
You're right to point out the dangers of entrusting an unaccountable group with the responsibility of determining what is and isn't true, but I'm not sure that electing the fact checkers would improve their accuracy.
Also, if you think it is suspicious that people in one political party make statements that are deemed lies, your problem might not be with the checkers.
You're right to point out the dangers of entrusting an unaccountable group with the responsibility of determining what is and isn't true, but I'm not sure that electing the fact checkers would improve their accuracy.
Also, if you think it is suspicious that people in one political party make statements that are deemed lies, your problem might not be with the checkers.
> Also, if you think it is suspicious that people in one political party make statements that are deemed lies, your problem might not be with the checkers.
Come on, I could easily remove context and/or provide a misleading "authoritative" interpretation to basically anything a Democrat says in order to brand it a lie. How new are you to this game?
Come on, I could easily remove context and/or provide a misleading "authoritative" interpretation to basically anything a Democrat says in order to brand it a lie. How new are you to this game?
This is an interesting point and my sibling comments are wrong: I'm sure the judiciary could provide that accountability, given new law. Even though I think Wikipedia is a failed project (because of it's own guidelines not being followed), it's actually got pretty good guidelines regarding verifiability and due weight:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_vie...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability
I'm imagining the media could be structured upon some sort of protocol codified in law that would ensure those guidelines would be respected.
However the main thing that's necessary is probably instilling some sense of duty, honor and integrity in a large number of individuals. No idea how to go about that.
EDIT: in the USA the FCC actually had regulation with a similar intent in the near past: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_vie...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability
I'm imagining the media could be structured upon some sort of protocol codified in law that would ensure those guidelines would be respected.
However the main thing that's necessary is probably instilling some sense of duty, honor and integrity in a large number of individuals. No idea how to go about that.
EDIT: in the USA the FCC actually had regulation with a similar intent in the near past: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine
> People should be held accountable for what they say on media platforms, and lies shouldn't be allowed.. but i can't see that even happening.
I've suggested to @dang that he tries implementing a kind of experimental discussion mode like that right here on HN, where for certain types of topics he could enable this mode and see what the effect would be on the human mind.
I don't know all the particulars of what changes should be included in such a mode (would be a good topic for a discussion), but the main one I would include is an additional guideline something along the lines of "Please exert some effort in restricting your statements to the discussion of reasonably conclusive true facts about physical reality."
This way, when people inevitably succumb to mistaking the virtual reality in their mind (where one has supernatural powers like omniscience, the ability to read minds at scale, predict the future with precise accuracy, completely understand infinitely complex indeterminate/chaotic systems, etc) for physical reality (where we do not have these powers), such comments could be flagged and reviewed a few days later (when cooler heads prevail) in a group Post Incident Review process of some sort (maybe a zoom meeting), where we could examine our behavior from a more metaphysical perspective, the goal being to increase awareness of the fact that inaccurate beliefs about reality are not something that only members of our personal outgroups suffer from, but rather something we all suffer from. It is simply a consequence of the same base software we all run in our minds.
Unfortunately, this idea seems to be rather unpopular (shocking!) - so, the beatings will continue until morale improves (or some variation of that), or until this never ending process comes to its natural conclusion. Mother Nature is a cruel mistress.
https://humorinamerica.wordpress.com/2014/05/19/the-morpholo...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MHExbJGIQs
https://youtu.be/smX2UtdJFq8 (not recommended for filthy casuals)
I've suggested to @dang that he tries implementing a kind of experimental discussion mode like that right here on HN, where for certain types of topics he could enable this mode and see what the effect would be on the human mind.
I don't know all the particulars of what changes should be included in such a mode (would be a good topic for a discussion), but the main one I would include is an additional guideline something along the lines of "Please exert some effort in restricting your statements to the discussion of reasonably conclusive true facts about physical reality."
This way, when people inevitably succumb to mistaking the virtual reality in their mind (where one has supernatural powers like omniscience, the ability to read minds at scale, predict the future with precise accuracy, completely understand infinitely complex indeterminate/chaotic systems, etc) for physical reality (where we do not have these powers), such comments could be flagged and reviewed a few days later (when cooler heads prevail) in a group Post Incident Review process of some sort (maybe a zoom meeting), where we could examine our behavior from a more metaphysical perspective, the goal being to increase awareness of the fact that inaccurate beliefs about reality are not something that only members of our personal outgroups suffer from, but rather something we all suffer from. It is simply a consequence of the same base software we all run in our minds.
Unfortunately, this idea seems to be rather unpopular (shocking!) - so, the beatings will continue until morale improves (or some variation of that), or until this never ending process comes to its natural conclusion. Mother Nature is a cruel mistress.
https://humorinamerica.wordpress.com/2014/05/19/the-morpholo...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MHExbJGIQs
https://youtu.be/smX2UtdJFq8 (not recommended for filthy casuals)
Your proposed system seems mostly unaware that bias pervades all people and therefore all systems.
I don't think there's a way to system-design ourselves out of this situation.
I don't think there's a way to system-design ourselves out of this situation.
That's the very point of such a system - to learn to recognize the symptoms of this problem, and how to rectify them. Also, note that bias is not a binary, it is a continuum, and our defaults can be overcome (see the third video linked above for an example).
> I don't think there's a way to system-design ourselves out of this situation.
I personally prefer to try and fail before declaring defeat. After all, how would one know if something isn't possible if no one ever tried it? If our ancestors had this attitude, we'd probably be doing something like having a pleasant ride in our horse and buggies rather than having pointless arguments with people we don't know who live half way around the world.
> I don't think there's a way to system-design ourselves out of this situation.
I personally prefer to try and fail before declaring defeat. After all, how would one know if something isn't possible if no one ever tried it? If our ancestors had this attitude, we'd probably be doing something like having a pleasant ride in our horse and buggies rather than having pointless arguments with people we don't know who live half way around the world.
If our ancestors had this attitude, we might not have rage-builders being used daily by a third of living humans.
I don't believe all problems are unsolvable, but I've seen many systems fail because they do not take human nature into account.
Facebook and Twitter are probably the biggest such disasters I know about.
I realize your proposal's intent is to help people realize they have this problem.
I don't think it would do so very well.
I don't believe all problems are unsolvable, but I've seen many systems fail because they do not take human nature into account.
Facebook and Twitter are probably the biggest such disasters I know about.
I realize your proposal's intent is to help people realize they have this problem.
I don't think it would do so very well.
> If our ancestors had this attitude, we might not have rage-builders being used daily by a third of living humans.
I agree. But we've got them now, so what will we do about it?
> I don't believe all problems are unsolvable, but I've seen many systems fail because they do not take human nature into account.
Me too. Let's say we did this and it didn't work - would this leave us in a worse state than before (excluding the development time involved)?
> I realize your proposal's intent is to help people realize they have this problem. I don't think it would do so very well.
You may be right! But how would we find out for sure?
Hypothetically: if the idea went to a vote (to try such an experiment here on HN), would you vote for or against, and why?
I agree. But we've got them now, so what will we do about it?
> I don't believe all problems are unsolvable, but I've seen many systems fail because they do not take human nature into account.
Me too. Let's say we did this and it didn't work - would this leave us in a worse state than before (excluding the development time involved)?
> I realize your proposal's intent is to help people realize they have this problem. I don't think it would do so very well.
You may be right! But how would we find out for sure?
Hypothetically: if the idea went to a vote (to try such an experiment here on HN), would you vote for or against, and why?
I'm not sure whether I'd vote for or against this proposal.
I probably would just ignore it entirely, if it was experimental and opt-in.
If it was required, I would probably stop using HN.
Despite trying to be a careful systems thinker and programmer, at my heart of hearts I am a mystic and an artist.
I suspect those parts of my worldview would be largely dismissed as drivel by people who are confident they know the truth and ideas that diverge from theirs as mine do aren't worth considering.
I probably would just ignore it entirely, if it was experimental and opt-in.
If it was required, I would probably stop using HN.
Despite trying to be a careful systems thinker and programmer, at my heart of hearts I am a mystic and an artist.
I suspect those parts of my worldview would be largely dismissed as drivel by people who are confident they know the truth and ideas that diverge from theirs as mine do aren't worth considering.
It's unpopular because it's naive. Nobody has the ability to prove everything to themselves and everyone else from first principles. Everyone takes shortcuts by repeating things they were told by others, thus "lying" is occasionally the 5-year old type of lying where someone just makes something up on the spot and tries to avoid looking guilty, but these are not the meaningful or common types of lies. In reality "lies" refer to the personal threshold someone has for edges in a sort of transitive PageRank over the graph of all claims made by all people.
A good way to see this is by looking at what news organisations call "fact checks". Almost always, these are simply repeating the claims of some random academics or government institutions, which are taken to be true by default. A lot of people really do assign a very high prior to "member of the establishment saying something makes it true", but a whole lot of other people do not. If the latter go and dig in and discover the underlying claim seems false, and start saying so, then the news orgs will claim it's "disinformation" and the others will say it's the "lying media" and yet nobody is literally making things up maliciously, even if a claim is objectively true or false.
A good way to see this is by looking at what news organisations call "fact checks". Almost always, these are simply repeating the claims of some random academics or government institutions, which are taken to be true by default. A lot of people really do assign a very high prior to "member of the establishment saying something makes it true", but a whole lot of other people do not. If the latter go and dig in and discover the underlying claim seems false, and start saying so, then the news orgs will claim it's "disinformation" and the others will say it's the "lying media" and yet nobody is literally making things up maliciously, even if a claim is objectively true or false.
This comment seems like a fine example of the very phenomenon I am trying to draw people's attention to.
I will try to explain...
> It's unpopular because it's naive.
You have no way of knowing whether this is naive.
> Nobody has the ability to prove everything to themselves and everyone else from first principles.
In no means whatsoever did I state this as a goal or requirement.
> Everyone takes shortcuts by repeating things they were told by others
Agreed. But my point is: people do not realize (in realtime) that they do this - and, this can have severe consequences.
> thus "lying" is occasionally the 5-year old type of lying where someone just makes something up on the spot and tries to avoid looking guilty, but these are not the meaningful or common types of lies.
I am not discussing lies (lying requires conscious intent) - I am discussing the mind's default inability to reliably distinguish between virtual reality and physical reality. This phenomenon can be observed in very high quantities on HN, but only in certain types of threads (culture war topics) - on other topics (computing, physics, etc), one will find very little flawed logic or assertions (relative to other social media sites).
Even if one doesn't think this is worth worrying about, it should at least be considered potentially interesting, considering the consequences of this phenomenon if it exists at scale. Take the climate change debate for example, or 'masks for covid' as a simpler scenario: what is the ACTUAL reason(s) our societies can't sort this shit out?
Should we care about such things, or should we not care? I'm getting very mixed messages on this from every social media site or organization I belong to. There seems to be general consensus that we should care (as a boolean) - but on the degree to which we should care, it seems like some people are opposed to caring too much (when it extends into thinking deeply and precisely, based on first principles (free of axioms and premises) and sound epistemology).
If you are debugging a complex system, would you use skills like precise observation, logic, and systems thinking, or would you just make a few wild guesses and throw up your hands in defeat when your guesses turn out to be ineffective?
> A good way to see this is by looking at what news organisations call "fact checks". Almost always, these are simply repeating the claims of some random academics or government institutions, which are taken to be true by default.
Agreed. This is an example of how 'that which is not true' in physical reality can become "true" in virtual reality.
> A lot of people really do assign a very high prior to "member of the establishment saying something makes it true", but a whole lot of other people do not.
Subconscious bayesian reasoning is often converted to binary when passed to the conscious (or so it seems).
> If the latter go and dig in and discover the underlying claim seems false, and start saying so, then the news orgs will claim it's "disinformation" and the others will say it's the "lying media" and yet nobody is literally making things up maliciously, even if a claim is objectively true or false.
Mostly agree, except for the "nobody is literally making things up maliciously" part - sometimes people actually do make things up with "malicious" intent.
I will try to explain...
> It's unpopular because it's naive.
You have no way of knowing whether this is naive.
> Nobody has the ability to prove everything to themselves and everyone else from first principles.
In no means whatsoever did I state this as a goal or requirement.
> Everyone takes shortcuts by repeating things they were told by others
Agreed. But my point is: people do not realize (in realtime) that they do this - and, this can have severe consequences.
> thus "lying" is occasionally the 5-year old type of lying where someone just makes something up on the spot and tries to avoid looking guilty, but these are not the meaningful or common types of lies.
I am not discussing lies (lying requires conscious intent) - I am discussing the mind's default inability to reliably distinguish between virtual reality and physical reality. This phenomenon can be observed in very high quantities on HN, but only in certain types of threads (culture war topics) - on other topics (computing, physics, etc), one will find very little flawed logic or assertions (relative to other social media sites).
Even if one doesn't think this is worth worrying about, it should at least be considered potentially interesting, considering the consequences of this phenomenon if it exists at scale. Take the climate change debate for example, or 'masks for covid' as a simpler scenario: what is the ACTUAL reason(s) our societies can't sort this shit out?
Should we care about such things, or should we not care? I'm getting very mixed messages on this from every social media site or organization I belong to. There seems to be general consensus that we should care (as a boolean) - but on the degree to which we should care, it seems like some people are opposed to caring too much (when it extends into thinking deeply and precisely, based on first principles (free of axioms and premises) and sound epistemology).
If you are debugging a complex system, would you use skills like precise observation, logic, and systems thinking, or would you just make a few wild guesses and throw up your hands in defeat when your guesses turn out to be ineffective?
> A good way to see this is by looking at what news organisations call "fact checks". Almost always, these are simply repeating the claims of some random academics or government institutions, which are taken to be true by default.
Agreed. This is an example of how 'that which is not true' in physical reality can become "true" in virtual reality.
> A lot of people really do assign a very high prior to "member of the establishment saying something makes it true", but a whole lot of other people do not.
Subconscious bayesian reasoning is often converted to binary when passed to the conscious (or so it seems).
> If the latter go and dig in and discover the underlying claim seems false, and start saying so, then the news orgs will claim it's "disinformation" and the others will say it's the "lying media" and yet nobody is literally making things up maliciously, even if a claim is objectively true or false.
Mostly agree, except for the "nobody is literally making things up maliciously" part - sometimes people actually do make things up with "malicious" intent.
>But when media organizations peddling outright lies are allowed to call it "news", and are treated as being just as valid as genuine journalistic organizations
Where are these "genuine journalistic organizations" defined except in our own minds?
There is no journalist licence. There is no license to publish. You have a printer, and someone to buy what you print out? Congratulations! You're a journalist! In the U.S. anyway.
Where are these "genuine journalistic organizations" defined except in our own minds?
There is no journalist licence. There is no license to publish. You have a printer, and someone to buy what you print out? Congratulations! You're a journalist! In the U.S. anyway.
As it should be. I like to think of journalism as the softest science in that it has a lot of subtlety - hidden connections and dimensions - but ultimately the objective is to be able to infer the state of the world at some time - be it past, present of future - based on some partial information. And just like in regular science, collective knowledge can be leveraged and built upon if enough people take it upon themselves to do spot checks verifying the accuracy of accounts of events to which you might have an informational advantage. This can be via witnessing events first hand or have pre existing depth or via direct consumption of the raw primaries or just going on a dive.
Absolutely. I agree, and did not intend to imply ist should be otherwise. We must all be journalists in a sense, as each of us is to the societal macro-organism as a single sigmoidal node is to a neural network. It's why I think the whole "thou shalt not bear false witness" is actually a severely underrated aspect of reasonable behavior as a human being.
I would say it's a matter of intent, and of capability.
Intent, in that the organization, and the people making it up, genuinely seek to find truth and publish it, rather than seeking to push one agenda or another regardless of the facts.
And capability, in that they can, in fact, do the research and possibly fieldwork necessary to get truths that are interesting enough to be worth publishing, as opposed to just reposting stories someone else researched, whatever their truth value.
Having the intent described above but not the capability makes you something of an aggregator. Having neither capability nor intent makes you, more or less, a partisan blogger.
Having the capability to be journalistic but the intent to push an agenda regardless of the truth makes you an incredibly dangerous propaganda outfit.
Intent, in that the organization, and the people making it up, genuinely seek to find truth and publish it, rather than seeking to push one agenda or another regardless of the facts.
And capability, in that they can, in fact, do the research and possibly fieldwork necessary to get truths that are interesting enough to be worth publishing, as opposed to just reposting stories someone else researched, whatever their truth value.
Having the intent described above but not the capability makes you something of an aggregator. Having neither capability nor intent makes you, more or less, a partisan blogger.
Having the capability to be journalistic but the intent to push an agenda regardless of the truth makes you an incredibly dangerous propaganda outfit.
Given, but even that test is somewhat dangerous. Where is the line when the Government refuses the truth you are seeking and tries to shut you down for clearly being a propagandist even if you are on the right track?
I'm incredibly leery assigning a particular set of qualities to the essential journalist, even if by and large I do agree with the criteria you state.
I'm incredibly leery assigning a particular set of qualities to the essential journalist, even if by and large I do agree with the criteria you state.
All the social media sites did the research and learned that filter bubbles and outrage drives engagement more than anything else. If you tune your systems to maximize engagement and ignore the side effects, the side effects still happen, whether it’s deliberate or not
This is also true of TV, print, and other non-social medias - and that seems to be under commented on HN.
Has existed for longer and I believe started this downhill trajectory, perhaps created the 'tinder' if you will.
They too do it for the engagement/ratings.
Rupert Murdoch's empire as a prime cause creating an alternate reality solely because it made his media the #1 most watched news network, print, etc.
They've even argued in court themselves that any 'normal' person wouldn't take their 'news' seriously. Take Tucker Carlson's early videos as another example of this gross negligence; he's an actor saying what gets views no matter his actual beliefs are.
Has existed for longer and I believe started this downhill trajectory, perhaps created the 'tinder' if you will.
They too do it for the engagement/ratings.
Rupert Murdoch's empire as a prime cause creating an alternate reality solely because it made his media the #1 most watched news network, print, etc.
They've even argued in court themselves that any 'normal' person wouldn't take their 'news' seriously. Take Tucker Carlson's early videos as another example of this gross negligence; he's an actor saying what gets views no matter his actual beliefs are.
Absolutely.
And making that distinction helps highlight that there are factors in how information is shaped and transmitted through networks of people that results in these outcomes.
And making that distinction helps highlight that there are factors in how information is shaped and transmitted through networks of people that results in these outcomes.
Especially financial factors... It's an incentive when human nature seems to prefer the untrue/insane.
Indeed, Facebook and YouTube for a conservative and for a liberal are each completely different experiences.
This is what blaming the algorithm gets us. It's well past time to start shutting down platforms with algorithmic content systems.
This is what blaming the algorithm gets us. It's well past time to start shutting down platforms with algorithmic content systems.
Or, hear me out, requiring certain levels of transparency from content systems that have started to augment such fundamental constructs as human-to-human communication and information sharing.
There's nothing inherently wrong with automating content discovery; it's the cost function being optimized that I think we would almost all take issue with.
There's nothing inherently wrong with automating content discovery; it's the cost function being optimized that I think we would almost all take issue with.
Agreed. Much of the problem I see is that people can fall down a rabbit hole of polarization without realizing it; no matter how far into the fringes the recommendation algorithm gets, it'll always feel like "oh everyone's saying this" to you as a viewer.
"What happens when you take a creature with a strong confirmation bias and feed it content specifically chosen for congruence with its particular bias?"
Or rather, they knew the answer, but knew that it was the best way to maximize engagement and thus profit.
Or rather, they knew the answer, but knew that it was the best way to maximize engagement and thus profit.
There still needs to be scope for personal responsibility though. Blaming your own behaviours on the recommendation algorithm of youtube etc is just a cop out.
It's a copout on an individual level, but the question of who's responsible is a lot less important than the question of what we're going to do about the problem. In the absence of a plan to make millions upon millions of partisans more individually responsible, we've gotta do something about the recommendation algorithms.
A cop sees a guy crawling around under a streetlight and asks him, "Sir, what are you doing?"
The man replies, "Well, officer, I dropped my car keys and I'm trying to find them."
The policeman offers to help, and they search fruitlessly for ten minutes.
Finally, the officer says, "Are you sure this is where you dropped them?"
"Oh, no, it's not. I dropped them way over there in the parking lot."
Dumbfounded, the cop says, "WHY are you looking over HERE?"
"Well, the light is better over here."[deleted]
If it is well known human behaviour, is it their personal responsibility? Especially combined with the deliberate exploitation of said behaviour by corporations?
Rabbit holes are good for most kinds content. I do want to go down a rabbit hole of restoration gardening videos. Its only politics and news which become a problem
[deleted]
What does the transparency change though?
Reminds me after the GFC how some of the rules that were brought in were around banning automated real time trading systems. This was in some similar ways recognizing that automated algorithmic treatment can have extremely harmful side effects - even when it successfully executes the goals of its owner (for the stock market - once a certain threshold is breached, get me out of the market as quickly as possible - as an individual, its exactly what I want, for the overall market it is a disaster if everyone does it suddenly).
Indeed. Generally along with blaming the algorithm, as we start using AI, the problem is the algorithm is no longer even understandable in many cases.
Tech companies should be able to explain and demonstrate the logic their systems use. These algorithms should probably be public. And any system which cannot be transparently explained should be shut down.
Tech companies should be able to explain and demonstrate the logic their systems use. These algorithms should probably be public. And any system which cannot be transparently explained should be shut down.
> These algorithms should probably be public. And any system which cannot be transparently explained should be shut down.
But what would even count as an explanation, and what does a "public" algorithm reveal?
There is no line of code that says "if (video.content == extreme) { show_to(EVERYONE) }".
A lot of the dangers are possible from a simple algorithm which merely performs A/B testing on whether a certain (randomly chosen, at first) video increases the amount of time a user spends on a site.
You could pass a law against A/B testing, or require companies to provide deliberately bad suggestions to make their users frustrated, but I'm not sure if that is a proportionate legislative response.
But what would even count as an explanation, and what does a "public" algorithm reveal?
There is no line of code that says "if (video.content == extreme) { show_to(EVERYONE) }".
A lot of the dangers are possible from a simple algorithm which merely performs A/B testing on whether a certain (randomly chosen, at first) video increases the amount of time a user spends on a site.
You could pass a law against A/B testing, or require companies to provide deliberately bad suggestions to make their users frustrated, but I'm not sure if that is a proportionate legislative response.
> But what would even count as an explanation
That sort of gets to the heart of it - saying "it's impossible to explain my algorithm because it is so complicated" no longer cuts it. It's the same as if I said to the FDA "This drug works in our testing for the indicated purpose but we have no idea if there are side effects" they aren't go to say "well, OK then, you can sell it". They'll say "come back when you have tested for all possible side effects and you can precisly define its behavior"
Currently Facebook, Google et al, will measure a narrow set of metrics to define the success of their algorithms (primarily relating to $$$) and then declare victory based on empirical optimisation of those metrics. They have to show that not only does the algorithm work for its stated purpose, it doesn't have undesirable side effects. They could do massive testing to demonstrate a huge range of side effects are not present. That would be similar to and probably as expensive as drug development. But an easier way to do that is to transparently explain what the algorithms do so that side effects can be predicted. If that is actually impossible for a given algorithm - well, maybe that algorithm shouldn't be used on the public at all.
That sort of gets to the heart of it - saying "it's impossible to explain my algorithm because it is so complicated" no longer cuts it. It's the same as if I said to the FDA "This drug works in our testing for the indicated purpose but we have no idea if there are side effects" they aren't go to say "well, OK then, you can sell it". They'll say "come back when you have tested for all possible side effects and you can precisly define its behavior"
Currently Facebook, Google et al, will measure a narrow set of metrics to define the success of their algorithms (primarily relating to $$$) and then declare victory based on empirical optimisation of those metrics. They have to show that not only does the algorithm work for its stated purpose, it doesn't have undesirable side effects. They could do massive testing to demonstrate a huge range of side effects are not present. That would be similar to and probably as expensive as drug development. But an easier way to do that is to transparently explain what the algorithms do so that side effects can be predicted. If that is actually impossible for a given algorithm - well, maybe that algorithm shouldn't be used on the public at all.
If a company can't explain why a given user was shown a given video, at a given time, that system is faulty and should be prohibited. Which is to say, there's nothing particularly wrong with complicated rules and scoring systems making recommendations, but things like black box neural networks should not be able to be used for this stuff.
Let me give you an example of a good system: Spam filters not operated by Google. Algorithms decide whether or not mail gets through my corporate mail filter. It determines it based on a score, which is tallied from a set of rules. And you can drill down and see the score a spam email received, and then you can see the rules and factors that created that score. As a user, you can even generally see this, because the results are included in the message's headers in your inbox. And if you're the admin, you can then adjust those rules to fix errant behavior.
That's how a recommendation system should work. A system which can't be analyzed in that matter should not exist, and the rules and scoring applied to such systems should be disclosed in some sort of header.
Let me give you an example of a good system: Spam filters not operated by Google. Algorithms decide whether or not mail gets through my corporate mail filter. It determines it based on a score, which is tallied from a set of rules. And you can drill down and see the score a spam email received, and then you can see the rules and factors that created that score. As a user, you can even generally see this, because the results are included in the message's headers in your inbox. And if you're the admin, you can then adjust those rules to fix errant behavior.
That's how a recommendation system should work. A system which can't be analyzed in that matter should not exist, and the rules and scoring applied to such systems should be disclosed in some sort of header.
The spam filter works because only you can see the scores of the emails. If the rules of Google search and Youtube were more transparent, spammers would always be one step ahead of spam detection, so everyone would lose in the end.
This is false. Spammers can and do test their own emails against spam filters. And the less transparent ones, like Gmail's often suffer longer failures to detect new strategies spammers are using.
There are enough unique filters that a spammer cannot hope to account for them all in a timely manner. Getting .001% of spam emails past Gmail's filters is much more efficient than getting 100% of emails past my personal Thunderbird spam filter.
That's a valid argument for not using Gmail, but that in the case of Youtube, almost everyone wants a single place where they can watch all the user-generated videos.
That's a valid argument for not using Gmail, but that in the case of Youtube, almost everyone wants a single place where they can watch all the user-generated videos.
> almost everyone wants a single place where they can watch all the user-generated videos
I have my doubts this is true, so much as people are used to the relatively common controls/experience that comes with clicking a YouTube link. If I gave you a link to ocdtrekkietube.com/s8fsj2 (not a real link), and it worked as well as YouTube, I'm not sure any user would be particularly upset about it.
The biggest reason YouTube is as powerful as it is is that video hosting is expensive and few companies can eat that kind of bandwidth and storage without being an ad giant.
I have my doubts this is true, so much as people are used to the relatively common controls/experience that comes with clicking a YouTube link. If I gave you a link to ocdtrekkietube.com/s8fsj2 (not a real link), and it worked as well as YouTube, I'm not sure any user would be particularly upset about it.
The biggest reason YouTube is as powerful as it is is that video hosting is expensive and few companies can eat that kind of bandwidth and storage without being an ad giant.
We're talking about Youtube's recommendation algorithms here, not their video hosting. Imagine if Youtube hosted the same videos, but provided no homepage, recommendations, or search engine. People would still gravitate towards a single source where they can watch all the content they want. There may be some more competition, such as a liberal recommendation engine, a conservative one, and one for teenagers. However, these websites/apps would likely face all the same problems that Youtube does today.
My iphone indexes photos and labels all the ones with dogs in it. I don't care how this system works and likely the answer is some black box NN. Why should this system be shut down when it causes no harm and works pretty well?
> Why should this system be shut down when it causes no harm and works pretty well?
You believe it causes no harm, but that doesn't make for a good assumption, considering image recognition NNs have been repeatedly demonstrated to be racist. So you may find it's classification of dogs might work really well, but it might label other people's coworkers or family members as dogs.
You believe it causes no harm, but that doesn't make for a good assumption, considering image recognition NNs have been repeatedly demonstrated to be racist. So you may find it's classification of dogs might work really well, but it might label other people's coworkers or family members as dogs.
I still don't see why I should care since its only for my personal use. I agree in other areas like law enforcement and news curation this is an issue but for my personal photo search all I care about is that it works pretty well, which it does. Some mistakes are fine here.
Which is my main point, why should this apply to all tech when in some cases unexplainable mistakes are fine?
Which is my main point, why should this apply to all tech when in some cases unexplainable mistakes are fine?
In many cases making a neural network explainable is literally impossible. Logic based AI failed in the 90s and only though neural nets have we gotten to human and superhuman level advances. If you want explainability it's going to require giving up a lot of innovation that could help people. Especially when we ourselves can't explain our own behavior psychologically.
> In many cases making a neural network explainable is literally impossible.
Then it should be illegal to use on consumer websites. It's that simple.
> If you want explainability it's going to require giving up a lot of innovation that could help people.
Four people died in the US Capitol because of this "innovation". It's time to stop pretending technology doesn't cause more harm than good in these cases.
Then it should be illegal to use on consumer websites. It's that simple.
> If you want explainability it's going to require giving up a lot of innovation that could help people.
Four people died in the US Capitol because of this "innovation". It's time to stop pretending technology doesn't cause more harm than good in these cases.
I don't like when people try to stop or slow down technological innovation. Technologies are just tools, a nuclear bomb could just as easily have been made into a nuclear power plant. But to fully restrict them shows a lack of foresight. Yes, recommender systems can be used for bad, as yesterday, but they can also be good.
It's likely unrestricted technological innovation will inevitably cause the end of the human species, and your own example demonstrates why: In our rush to create the nuclear bomb, several times we came close to obliterating all life on earth due to simple mistakes. Several times, the hesitation of one man was the only thing that prevented our planet's complete annihilation.
The nuclear bomb is exactly why we need to block "innovation" that causes more harm than good.
The nuclear bomb is exactly why we need to block "innovation" that causes more harm than good.
And yet nuclear energy is one of the highest latent energy sources we have, orders of magnitude above solar, wind, coal and so on. If we blocked progress, then we'd have never discovered this.
The question is, how do you know something is bad before developing it? You oftentimes can't put the genie back in the bottle.
The question is, how do you know something is bad before developing it? You oftentimes can't put the genie back in the bottle.
I would so love to have sliders on Youtube to be able to adjust bias filtering, and watch the suggested videos switch sides in real time.
This would probably get me to pay for the subscription.
Not quite what you're looking for, but have you seen this? https://www.their.tube/
Both FB and YouTube's top shared posts and video are super right-leaning, though (YouTube has other massively popular videos, but they are about gaming or influencer stuff). What would the equivalent "liberal" viral posts be, and why aren't they nearly as popular as the right's?
My bet is that Facebook’s user demographic skews old and white, and that explains their posting. If you go somewhere like Reddit or TikTok you’ll see an entirely different story.
Elsewhere in this thread the point is made that the opposite of a viral conservative video isn’t a viral liberal video. It’s either a moderate video, or no video at all.
(This might be the very point you are making, rhetorically?)
(This might be the very point you are making, rhetorically?)
Doesn't matter, assuming you allow people to pick who they follow. Try to look at the twitter feed of somebody who disagrees with you on a topic you find important - most the posts will be insults towards those who disagree with that persons POV.
Why can't there be a Giant Lever on the side that inputs a variable into the Magic Algorithms that you can adjust. Up down, left or right, whatever you want to call it. Why would you do this - even if people never touch it: because at least people KNOW there's a decision-tree at play here.
Also there MUST be some randomization or more generalized content introduced. And I'm not talking Trending Now or Hit Songs That Just Came Out. I'm looking at you, YouTube and Facebook. Sometimes I actually want new stuff and it keeps dragging me back into a virtual rabbit hole.
Also there MUST be some randomization or more generalized content introduced. And I'm not talking Trending Now or Hit Songs That Just Came Out. I'm looking at you, YouTube and Facebook. Sometimes I actually want new stuff and it keeps dragging me back into a virtual rabbit hole.
Because:
- There's no simple decision tree, but an ML model with countless knobs that are mostly implicit. Not worth the money to make an UI to tweak it.
- The puprose of these platforms is to maximize your exposure to ads. Nothing more. Anything that detracts from it is a no-go.
- There's no simple decision tree, but an ML model with countless knobs that are mostly implicit. Not worth the money to make an UI to tweak it.
- The puprose of these platforms is to maximize your exposure to ads. Nothing more. Anything that detracts from it is a no-go.
Kind of ironic calling for shutting down platforms with algorithmic content systems on HN.
Probably worth distinguishing between Algorithms targeting individuals and Algorithms running an entire site. Yes HN is algorithmic but you and I see the same things.
We blame algorithms and optimization a lot here but that analysis always glosses over the fact that people pick their own sources and form their own bubbles.
Everyone’s Youtube subscriptions are an echo chamber of views they mostly agree with because people only click subscribe on such channels.
A recommendation engine working perfectly is going to show you lateral channels that might be more or less extreme of the last one. But that’s not the root of the problem.
Everyone’s Youtube subscriptions are an echo chamber of views they mostly agree with because people only click subscribe on such channels.
A recommendation engine working perfectly is going to show you lateral channels that might be more or less extreme of the last one. But that’s not the root of the problem.
You are being naive. I wanted to see what the impact of a 50 caliber looks like on iron plates. This is just a childish curiosity for things that go bang. Immediately I was bombarded with recommendations of barely concealed white supremacists, and bizarre conspiracy theorists. I know that if I clicked on even one of them, then my recommendations will be full of that crap. Similarly, watch one motivational video, and Youtube decides "oh! I see!! so that's what you really want. Here's a deluge of 'similar' crap."
What I want to know about is more coherent explanations of abstract math and some scientific experiments which I never got to see in school, in addition to comedy. That I watch something else once in a while is not really an indication of my identity or my Jungian shadow self.
What I want to know about is more coherent explanations of abstract math and some scientific experiments which I never got to see in school, in addition to comedy. That I watch something else once in a while is not really an indication of my identity or my Jungian shadow self.
> I was bombarded with recommendations of barely concealed white supremacists, and bizarre conspiracy theorists. I know that if I clicked on even one of them, then my recommendations will be full of that crap.
You were offered the recommendations, but you declined. It's still a matter of self-selection and self-exposure. How many recommendations would it take to turn you into a white supremacist? How many video viewings? If your answer is that no amount would, then the algorithms don't seem to be the real problem.
You were offered the recommendations, but you declined. It's still a matter of self-selection and self-exposure. How many recommendations would it take to turn you into a white supremacist? How many video viewings? If your answer is that no amount would, then the algorithms don't seem to be the real problem.
I did decline. But I have seen many of my parents' generation getting increasingly radical (I am not American, BTW. I am talking about India). They don't have the tools to understand what is going on. Their entire life was training to "read between the lines" of newspaper articles and journals. They are used to subtle lies and distortions, and they can catch that. Blatant outright virulent rhetoric - with the tone "this is some truth that must be told" - is ok in 1 or 2 videos. But the recommendation engine enmeshes them in that mire.
My mother is a PhD. I asked her whether she will accept a paper without sound academic bibliography. She said no. Then why would she believe in extremist videos with shady citations and outright lies? But she does. I think it is because of the recommendation engines which keep feeding similar videos. Just like Goebbels' maxim of repeating a lie often enough and loudly enough to make it the truth.
We can keep saying that our algorithms are fine. But if what we see today has never been seen in history, I think it is high time that we re-evaluate our current beliefs about the impact and the correctness of our work.
My mother is a PhD. I asked her whether she will accept a paper without sound academic bibliography. She said no. Then why would she believe in extremist videos with shady citations and outright lies? But she does. I think it is because of the recommendation engines which keep feeding similar videos. Just like Goebbels' maxim of repeating a lie often enough and loudly enough to make it the truth.
We can keep saying that our algorithms are fine. But if what we see today has never been seen in history, I think it is high time that we re-evaluate our current beliefs about the impact and the correctness of our work.
> I asked her whether she will accept a paper without sound academic bibliography. She said no. Then why would she believe in extremist videos with shady citations and outright lies?
This is very common. I would even say the norm. No person is fully rational. Rather, people may think rationally about certain things — their "speciality", perhaps — but not about others. Everyone is irrational in some ways.
> But if what we see today has never been seen in history
Which part do you think is historically unprecedented? The technology of course is unprecedented, but I don't see anything about the beliefs of people today that's unprecedented.
This is very common. I would even say the norm. No person is fully rational. Rather, people may think rationally about certain things — their "speciality", perhaps — but not about others. Everyone is irrational in some ways.
> But if what we see today has never been seen in history
Which part do you think is historically unprecedented? The technology of course is unprecedented, but I don't see anything about the beliefs of people today that's unprecedented.
There was once a time when newspapers were never before seen in history. Just as your parents' generation learnt how to detect misinformation in newspapers, they and new generations will learn to detect misinformation in new forms of media. People adapt, we always have. I'm sure when your parents were young or during the early days of journalism, there were problems and misunderstandings when reading newspapers. It didn't really warrant rushing out to end freedom of the press or calling to halt newspapers.
Properly sourced news is extremely rare.
Just because you share more things in common with those you hate doesn't mean the recommendation is broken.
If a large percentage of people who watch gun blowing up videos also are interested in the videos you mention than why wouldn't they show it (I assume if it were breaking guidelines it would be removed)
If a large percentage of people who watch gun blowing up videos also are interested in the videos you mention than why wouldn't they show it (I assume if it were breaking guidelines it would be removed)
The recommendation should be based on what a large fraction of my time is spent on (average over the timeline of my history), rather than a large of fraction of people who watch the last watched video is based on. Why does one video entirely screw up my historical record? I can't remember being recommended one 3Blue1Brown video in the last year, despite being subscribed to him. It's bizarre.
The ones in the sidebar are based on global patterns to that specific video.
The homepage ones should show you subscriptions videos but also based on the last keywords/videos watched.
I don't see the value in using 2012-2019 videos watched when your recent ones speak more to what you currently are interested in.
The homepage ones should show you subscriptions videos but also based on the last keywords/videos watched.
I don't see the value in using 2012-2019 videos watched when your recent ones speak more to what you currently are interested in.
If you turn off your history them search for 3blue1brown, and maybe PBS spacetime, you'll get 3blue1brown in your suggestions
Pretty much. I watch some pretty left-wing political commentators on YouTube along with math/cs/physics videos and some geostratrgy videos, and all it takes is for me to watch one gun video by curiosity or one Joe Rogan video and leave YouTube playing to come back to some extremely questionable content. There's a sinkhole effect somewhere here.
leave YouTube playing
IMO autoplay for anything but music is one of the worst decisions ever made on online streaming services.
Kind of reminds me how repeatedly clicking the first link on Wikipedia articles inevitably leads to the article about Philosophy, but diverging instead of converging.
IMO autoplay for anything but music is one of the worst decisions ever made on online streaming services.
Kind of reminds me how repeatedly clicking the first link on Wikipedia articles inevitably leads to the article about Philosophy, but diverging instead of converging.
> repeatedly clicking the first link on Wikipedia
This is an interesting random walk experiment :)
This is an interesting random walk experiment :)
I think algorithms have more of an effect than you give them credit. Anecdotally on the occasion I've been linked to or suggested a Jordan Peterson/Moon Landing conspiracy videos on Youtube, after watching just one my feed is absolutely packed with that type of content for up to a week.
It's fairly easy to see how this can lead people who did not already hold those viewpoints down a rabbit hole where they end up far more radicalised than they would have otherwise been, especially since I've not once seen Youtube put any sort of "rebuttal" videos in amongst the "illuminati aliens are controlling your government" ones.
It's fairly easy to see how this can lead people who did not already hold those viewpoints down a rabbit hole where they end up far more radicalised than they would have otherwise been, especially since I've not once seen Youtube put any sort of "rebuttal" videos in amongst the "illuminati aliens are controlling your government" ones.
This really isn’t true.
My (logged out) YouTube feed has mostly cooking shows, programming videos, stuff about crafts and watchmaking etc, because those are mostly what I like to watch.
I’m also interested in guns. The moment I watch a gun video, I immediately get shown Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson, and The Blaze instead of all the cooking videos etc.
And yet none of the gun videos I watch are remotely political. They are exclusively about sports and history, and don’t even talk about gun politics, let alone politics in general.
My (logged out) YouTube feed has mostly cooking shows, programming videos, stuff about crafts and watchmaking etc, because those are mostly what I like to watch.
I’m also interested in guns. The moment I watch a gun video, I immediately get shown Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson, and The Blaze instead of all the cooking videos etc.
And yet none of the gun videos I watch are remotely political. They are exclusively about sports and history, and don’t even talk about gun politics, let alone politics in general.
I watch lots of videos on guns, cars, metalworking and history with the former two mostly geared toward history and manufacturing.
I never see (amateur) political talking heads recommended. It's all trash pop-history talking heads, semi-trash documentaries and low brow entertainment related to cars and guns (e.g. demo ranch and whistlin diesel).
I recently (like yesterday) watched a semi-political talking head discuss the economics of OnlyFans after a friend linked to that particular person's analysis so it'll be interesting to see if the algo tries to drag my content toward more talking heads.
I never see (amateur) political talking heads recommended. It's all trash pop-history talking heads, semi-trash documentaries and low brow entertainment related to cars and guns (e.g. demo ranch and whistlin diesel).
I recently (like yesterday) watched a semi-political talking head discuss the economics of OnlyFans after a friend linked to that particular person's analysis so it'll be interesting to see if the algo tries to drag my content toward more talking heads.
Interesting. I imagine there is more to it than just the videos.
E.g. if you live in a generally pro-gun area I think they be algorithm would probably be less likely to assume that it’s worth showing you political content.
E.g. if you live in a generally pro-gun area I think they be algorithm would probably be less likely to assume that it’s worth showing you political content.
I guess its obvious that the algo must work for a large enough number of people and for its optimization function.
You may simply be that % of the false positive/false negative that is a cost of doing business.
I mean - the alternative to this is having Google employ all the out of work journalists and editors and manually curate lists for people. I think the cost of losing a few people is vastly lower than hiring that many people, in each culture and country around the world.
You may simply be that % of the false positive/false negative that is a cost of doing business.
I mean - the alternative to this is having Google employ all the out of work journalists and editors and manually curate lists for people. I think the cost of losing a few people is vastly lower than hiring that many people, in each culture and country around the world.
I’m not sure I’m saying anything about whether the algo works or not.
I've had mostly the same experience with youtube. I wanted to get into woodworking during COVID lockdowns, so I was watching a lot of popular woodworking channels that had nothing to do with politics, and was frequently shown Trump ads. Then once I realised how expensive woodworking would be, I started watching videos about game development. After ~1 week, all the Trump ads disappeared, and I started getting Biden ads.
> The moment I watch a gun video, I immediately get shown Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson, and The Blaze instead of all the cooking videos etc.
I know recommendations are based on many factors that differ between us (such as location), but I can't reproduce that behavior. If I watch hickok45 or Paul Harrell in an incognito window, I get recommendations for more of their videos along with a few from Demolition Ranch, Forgotten Weapons, and other gun channels. I see no political videos in the recommendations.
I know recommendations are based on many factors that differ between us (such as location), but I can't reproduce that behavior. If I watch hickok45 or Paul Harrell in an incognito window, I get recommendations for more of their videos along with a few from Demolition Ranch, Forgotten Weapons, and other gun channels. I see no political videos in the recommendations.
Interesting - well those are are the kinds of people I watch.
I’m using AppleTV, but not logged in. It’s possible that it takes some time for that to happen.
Also, I watched a Jerry Miculek Video yesterday, and got no political stuff, so it’s also possible that the algorithm has been improved or they have specifically acted to break this association.
I’m using AppleTV, but not logged in. It’s possible that it takes some time for that to happen.
Also, I watched a Jerry Miculek Video yesterday, and got no political stuff, so it’s also possible that the algorithm has been improved or they have specifically acted to break this association.
> And yet none of the gun videos I watch are remotely political.
Sure, but to assume that you _probably_ hold conservative beliefs due to having an interest in guns is way more often the case than not. Same is true in an opposite way if you watched some video on abortion rights.
Sure, but to assume that you _probably_ hold conservative beliefs due to having an interest in guns is way more often the case than not. Same is true in an opposite way if you watched some video on abortion rights.
“to assume that you _probably_ hold conservative beliefs due to having an interest in guns is way more often the case than not“
Only in the crudest statistical sense. For example the fastest growing demographic of gun owners is black women, who are overwhelmingly Democratic voters.
And that’s exactly what the complaint about these algorithms is.
Only in the crudest statistical sense. For example the fastest growing demographic of gun owners is black women, who are overwhelmingly Democratic voters.
And that’s exactly what the complaint about these algorithms is.
That these algorithms are crude statistical approximators of hidden latent biases in the training data? That's their entire method of functioning! That's the entire process of a neural network. It seems you're wanting something that can predict the future, which is currently outside of our matrix multiplication skills.
I’m not ‘wanting’ something.
I’m simply pointing out that the algorithms do in fact steer people towards polarizing content, that is not what they would have otherwise chosen.
I’m simply pointing out that the algorithms do in fact steer people towards polarizing content, that is not what they would have otherwise chosen.
During elections, before I stopped using facebook, I used to try to follow everybody I could from every side of the political spectrum to try to get a more balanced feed. My goodness, my feed was immediately full of insane conspiracy theories, white nationalist group posts, communist posts, nothing but stories of subjugation and oppression of everybody from every side. The choice I made was to try to broaden my bubble, but what I got was insane
There's no evidence that heavy social media users are in any more of a bubble or echo chamber than non-users.[1]
[1] https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/913067759612973057
[1] https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/913067759612973057
Interesting if true. Do you have a non-twitter source?
This is a direct link to the research paper PDF: https://snurb.info/files/2017/Echo%20Chamber.pdf
Its worth noting that the companies that decided to not do this are not huge megacorps, so there is an argument to be made that anybody who isn't aggressively chasing engagement just can't get a seat at the table anymore. Am I mistaken about that? This sort of makes it a systemic problem, not necessarily a problem that a company leader can solve. Eg, not even Google+ with all its resources was able to dislodge Facebook.
Exactly. Is why we outlawed underage drinking and hard drugs. Once you get a taste you can’t say no even if you want to. The problem is not humans and human nature. The problem is that social media exploits human nature in a new way. It’s not going away without regulation, in the same way we have regulated countless other human ills.
Most media companies under capitalism end up acting like a paperclip maximizing AI[1]. They will eat the entire planet to get a few more eyeballs because no one taught them not to.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_convergence#Paper...
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_convergence#Paper...
In communism anyone who opposes the state is disappeared.
In capitalism anyone who opposes the corporation is disappeared.
You end up needing a mix of both. An independent news media with an explicit obligation to the truth, one that they can get in trouble for violating. We had that obligation for a long time through the middle of the 20th century. News organizations were well regarded even if they didn't always make the right calls they tried their best.
But then Rhupert Murdock realized that you could simply pretend to be one of those respected parties and lie to the viewers constantly and there would be no consequences. The obligation to the truth turned out to be a gentleman's agreement and there were no truth police breaking down your door when you told lies. That's when we discovered that the media is like the Prisoner's Dilemma. Fox news discovered that as long as everybody else was beholden to the facts they could lie repeatedly and constantly win the game. They've only fallen from the very tippy top of the ratings in recent years as other news organizations like OAN have discovered that the bigger the lie the bigger the ratings.
Fast forward to today and respect for the independent media (the all important 4th branch of government) is at an all time low and we have completely indoctrinated delusional people storming the Capitol building.
In capitalism anyone who opposes the corporation is disappeared.
You end up needing a mix of both. An independent news media with an explicit obligation to the truth, one that they can get in trouble for violating. We had that obligation for a long time through the middle of the 20th century. News organizations were well regarded even if they didn't always make the right calls they tried their best.
But then Rhupert Murdock realized that you could simply pretend to be one of those respected parties and lie to the viewers constantly and there would be no consequences. The obligation to the truth turned out to be a gentleman's agreement and there were no truth police breaking down your door when you told lies. That's when we discovered that the media is like the Prisoner's Dilemma. Fox news discovered that as long as everybody else was beholden to the facts they could lie repeatedly and constantly win the game. They've only fallen from the very tippy top of the ratings in recent years as other news organizations like OAN have discovered that the bigger the lie the bigger the ratings.
Fast forward to today and respect for the independent media (the all important 4th branch of government) is at an all time low and we have completely indoctrinated delusional people storming the Capitol building.
Well said. You answered that sibling comment that I refused to answer.
I am not a fan of the specifics of the fairness doctrine, but I believe the current state in which media companies can freely and knowingly lie as long as they don't stray too far into defamation is not tenable.
I am not a fan of the specifics of the fairness doctrine, but I believe the current state in which media companies can freely and knowingly lie as long as they don't stray too far into defamation is not tenable.
>You end up needing a mix of both
If you study political philosophy (e.g. Plato, Hobbes, Locke etc..) and read stuff like Orwell's Animal Farm, I think it becomes pretty evident that it ultimately won't matter how you structure society, whether that's a mix (of communism/capitalism), or having all of one or the other. Just using a simple thought experiment, you can show that the sheer existence of two or more people, can potentially give rise to situations where inequality becomes inevitable. In which case, leads to Hobbes's arguments about the state of nature.
If you study political philosophy (e.g. Plato, Hobbes, Locke etc..) and read stuff like Orwell's Animal Farm, I think it becomes pretty evident that it ultimately won't matter how you structure society, whether that's a mix (of communism/capitalism), or having all of one or the other. Just using a simple thought experiment, you can show that the sheer existence of two or more people, can potentially give rise to situations where inequality becomes inevitable. In which case, leads to Hobbes's arguments about the state of nature.
Well said, posting just so I can crib it more easily.
seamyb88(2)
qart(1)
As this is HN, I really believe that this lack of a shared reality is only possible with the Internet. Before the Internet, there were more conservative sources and more liberal sources, but never before could you completely surround yourself with your own version of reality. And more importantly, your version of reality is constantly reinforced by algorithms that are specifically designed to raise your level of rage (aka "engagement").
I certainly don't know what the right answer here is, or even if there is one. The flip side of this polarization is the Internet has allowed discriminated groups to organize (e.g. see the "It Gets Better Project")
I certainly don't know what the right answer here is, or even if there is one. The flip side of this polarization is the Internet has allowed discriminated groups to organize (e.g. see the "It Gets Better Project")
Historically, lack of a shared reality has been the rule. The idea that we all inhabit one reality is a construct of modernity, with the rise of mass production, mass media, and mass culture. Before the printing press there was no way for ideas to spread far enough to create a shared reality across a whole nation; indeed, the concept of a nation dates from this time. The closest you got was religion, but religions had a knack for splitting into sects and then bitterly fighting each other - witness the Protestant Reformation and the Wars of Religion that followed. Those wars were specifically fought over whose version of reality (both of which seem very quaint today) was true: each believed that the other was an existential threat to eternity.
The Internet just ushered in post-modernism on a global scale, which undoes a lot of the thought-unification (some would say thought-control) that came with modernity.
The Internet just ushered in post-modernism on a global scale, which undoes a lot of the thought-unification (some would say thought-control) that came with modernity.
Building on the history theme here; plenty of modern revolutions have been preceeded by a rise in polarising media. The french revolution had the pulp paper of Jean-Paul Marat [0], the soviets had Lenin's writings [1], and the Nazis had Julius Streicher's Der Sturmer [2]. It's not difficult to draw comparisons to Bannon's Breitbart here.
0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Paul_Marat 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iskra 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_St%C3%BCrmer
0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Paul_Marat 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iskra 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_St%C3%BCrmer
Nit: the first issue of Marat's "L'Ami du peuple" wasn't published until several months after the fall of the Bastille and thus played no role in radicalizing the populace prior to the Revolution.
But the broader point that the French Revolution was proceeded by a radicalized literature [0] is accurate (Sieyes' "What is the Third Estate?" is the most famous work [1]). Though it's contribution to the origins of the Revolution is the matter of some debate [2].
[0] For a good overview, see the work of Robert Darnton, esp. https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674536579 [1] https://fr.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Qu’est-ce_que_le_tiers_état... (I don't recall if there's a full English translation of this... there are excerpts in Keith Baker's French Revolution reader (U Chicago Press) [2] One of the better treatments of this is https://www.dukeupress.edu/The-Cultural-Origins-of-the-Frenc...
But the broader point that the French Revolution was proceeded by a radicalized literature [0] is accurate (Sieyes' "What is the Third Estate?" is the most famous work [1]). Though it's contribution to the origins of the Revolution is the matter of some debate [2].
[0] For a good overview, see the work of Robert Darnton, esp. https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674536579 [1] https://fr.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Qu’est-ce_que_le_tiers_état... (I don't recall if there's a full English translation of this... there are excerpts in Keith Baker's French Revolution reader (U Chicago Press) [2] One of the better treatments of this is https://www.dukeupress.edu/The-Cultural-Origins-of-the-Frenc...
Ok but the fall of the bastile was an early milestone, it was over 3 years before the insurrection of august the 10th toppled the king
Thanks this is a great nit pick :) My knowledge on this topic is hazy at best so I jumped to the most famous populist screed writer of the french revolution.
Correlation does not imply causation. Moreover, when hasn't there been polarizing media? There are countless radical publications that did not imminently result in a political revolution. Also, today's afternoon riot doesn't really compare with the aforementioned historical events.
There were gatekeepers before, who generally acted responsibly.
Now that anyone can publish anything, and make it appear reasonably professional, there's much more competition for everyone's attention.
And the media outlets who cater to specific biases, and are outspoken and over-the-top, seem to win the attention.
Now that anyone can publish anything, and make it appear reasonably professional, there's much more competition for everyone's attention.
And the media outlets who cater to specific biases, and are outspoken and over-the-top, seem to win the attention.
You could do a pretty good job of bubbling yourself up starting in the 90s with talk radio + Fox News... tons of fun vitriol towards Clinton... my parents have been on that train for a while now.
I think people listening to talk radio on long commutes was a major early driving factor.
A pretty good doc about it; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Brainwashing_of_My_Dad
A pretty good doc about it; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Brainwashing_of_My_Dad
Exactly what I've experienced with my dad. He went from someone I idolized who could fix anything and solve any problem to the guy who rants about Muslims coming to kill us while building up a stock pile of guns.
How do you know your dad wasn't always that person? Children tend to be pretty naive about their own parents. Children very rarely have a sophisticated understanding of issues such as politics and race, so they wouldn't even notice problematic aspects of their parents until they become adults themselves.
I remember learning about Dyson spheres from him when I was much younger, but most recently he could only talk about god, guns and fighting against the liberal agenda. He legitimately devolved over the years to a shadow of what he used to be. I know memory is fickle and kids idolize their parents, but I got over that delusion before he went completely off the deep end. He has been a truck driver all my life. My experiences basically mirror those talked about in the documentary.
I feel you; very much the same situation for me, and I can pinpoint it to exactly when my dad started listening to Rush Limbaugh as he drove around in the course of his work. This would have been when he was about the age I am now, so it doesn’t seem right to me that it was his age. He was curious, smart, kind, and optimistic, then came Rush Limbaugh. After that, he had no interest in anything other than talking about how big government was ruining his life and the world.
My theory is pretty simple: anger (and especially anger with an object of blame) is like a drug, and he got addicted. I think it’s as simple as that.
My theory is pretty simple: anger (and especially anger with an object of blame) is like a drug, and he got addicted. I think it’s as simple as that.
> He was curious, smart, kind, and optimistic, then came Rush Limbaugh.
This is the story I never believe. My reaction to hearing Rush Limbaugh is the desire to shut it off ASAP. Don't you have to willingly invite him into your life? To listen and enjoy and want to listen more, to even "experiment" with the drug of anger with an object of blame, is not very indicative of kind and optimistic IMO.
The thing is, people are complex. They can be very kind... to their own kind, if you know what I mean. Alternatively, some parents can be kind to everyone else's kids and be abusive toward their own. It's almost always nuanced. You may only see side one side of a person, even if you think you know them better than anyone else.
This is the story I never believe. My reaction to hearing Rush Limbaugh is the desire to shut it off ASAP. Don't you have to willingly invite him into your life? To listen and enjoy and want to listen more, to even "experiment" with the drug of anger with an object of blame, is not very indicative of kind and optimistic IMO.
The thing is, people are complex. They can be very kind... to their own kind, if you know what I mean. Alternatively, some parents can be kind to everyone else's kids and be abusive toward their own. It's almost always nuanced. You may only see side one side of a person, even if you think you know them better than anyone else.
Rush Limbaugh wasn't the beginning though. For example, listening to Coast to Coast AM where they talk about alien stories and conspiracy theories which start off as a way to pass the time when you've got a 12 hour haul across the middle of nowhere and very few other options. Keep in mind, most of this started well before podcasts and Bluetooth so your options were extremely limited across vast sections of the country. I can see how a show like that could appeal to someone intellectually curious about things who initially just dismisses some of the wackier stuff. But that's just the beginning of the radicalization pipeline. No reasonable person just starts on Rush. They work their way up through softer, easier to swallow drugs first.
This is similar to how I view 4chan. I almost went down that path because I started viewing it as an edgy teen and thought it's just fun and memes, no one takes this stuff seriously. But over time it becomes normalized and they do start taking it seriously. Looking at it now and I assume as a "normal" person seeing it for the first time, it's crazy.
This is similar to how I view 4chan. I almost went down that path because I started viewing it as an edgy teen and thought it's just fun and memes, no one takes this stuff seriously. But over time it becomes normalized and they do start taking it seriously. Looking at it now and I assume as a "normal" person seeing it for the first time, it's crazy.
> But that's just the beginning of the radicalization pipeline. No reasonable person just starts on Rush.
This sounds more plausible. However, it's in direct conflict with the claim "I can pinpoint it to exactly when my dad started listening to Rush Limbaugh".
I feel that there's a whiff of "Reefer Madness" in the hysteria against partisan media, as if mere exposure will drive unsuspecting innocents mad.
This sounds more plausible. However, it's in direct conflict with the claim "I can pinpoint it to exactly when my dad started listening to Rush Limbaugh".
I feel that there's a whiff of "Reefer Madness" in the hysteria against partisan media, as if mere exposure will drive unsuspecting innocents mad.
I take your point but I feel like that’s not unlike saying “a good person would never abuse alcohol because they’d know it was a risk to their family’s happiness”. Dad definitely had a lot of frustrations - he was low income and a single parent, and I think the draw of AM talk radio was that it provided an explanation as to why his hardships weren’t his fault.
> that’s not unlike saying a good person would never abuse alcohol
It's more like, I wouldn't say that the vodka distillery is the cause of alcoholism.
It's more like, I wouldn't say that the vodka distillery is the cause of alcoholism.
By that argument you could say the cigarette industry isn’t the cause of tobacco addiction.
Anyhoo, I agree with you on the politics of the matter, but I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree about whether my dad was a good person who fell into the sway of bad influences or was a bad person all along.
Anyhoo, I agree with you on the politics of the matter, but I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree about whether my dad was a good person who fell into the sway of bad influences or was a bad person all along.
> it provided an explanation as to why his hardships weren’t his fault.
I think that’s the core of the problem on both sides.
I think that’s the core of the problem on both sides.
There are other factors though that can't be discounted. It's indisputable that he's older now. It's quite natural that many people get "worse" when they get older, a phenomenon that has always existed. Also, people raising children at home have different priorities and interests than "empty nesters" whose children have grown and left home. It's unsurprising that your father's behavior around you would be very different now as an adult than when you were young.
How exactly did he get into listening to that stuff? Were there no other choices? Not music? Not NPR?
How exactly did he get into listening to that stuff? Were there no other choices? Not music? Not NPR?
For a lot of us it happened in adulthood, where we were definitely aware of our parents' beliefs and values before, as they changed, and after their radicalization.
That explanation doesn't quite fit with historical opinion polls. It wasn't until 2000 that strong dislike of the opposing party shot up, and dislike had been slowly growing before that. But it is possible that the sudden change in trajectory was delayed by the 4 year election cycle, which puts politics in the fore of people's minds for durations that are too short for contempt to really snowball.
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2016/06/22/1-feelings-a...
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2016/06/22/1-feelings-a...
I don't understand why we're all pretending we don't know what the cause of the partisan divide was. It's all very clearly documented.
https://theweek.com/articles/880107/why-fox-news-created
> If Fox News had a DNA test, it would trace its origins to the Nixon administration. In 1970, political consultant Roger Ailes and other Nixon aides came up with a plan to create a new TV network that would circumvent existing media and provide "pro-administration" coverage to millions. "People are lazy," the aides explained in a memo. "With television you just sit — watch — listen. The thinking is done for you." Nixon embraced the idea, saying he and his supporters needed "our own news" from a network that would lead "a brutal, vicious attack on the opposition." Alas, his fantasy network did not come into being at that time, and the 37th president was soon engulfed in the Watergate scandal. At first, Republicans dismissed the scandal as a Washington Post "witch hunt." But then the White House tapes proved beyond doubt that Nixon had used the levers of government to pursue vendettas against his opponents and cover up his extensive skulduggery. Disgusted GOP leaders, including Sen. Howard Baker of the Senate Watergate committee, chose principles over party. Nixon was forced to resign.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/11/newt-gi...
> “One of the great problems we have in the Republican Party is that we don’t encourage you to be nasty,” he told the group. “We encourage you to be neat, obedient, and loyal, and faithful, and all those Boy Scout words, which would be great around the campfire but are lousy in politics.”
https://theweek.com/articles/880107/why-fox-news-created
> If Fox News had a DNA test, it would trace its origins to the Nixon administration. In 1970, political consultant Roger Ailes and other Nixon aides came up with a plan to create a new TV network that would circumvent existing media and provide "pro-administration" coverage to millions. "People are lazy," the aides explained in a memo. "With television you just sit — watch — listen. The thinking is done for you." Nixon embraced the idea, saying he and his supporters needed "our own news" from a network that would lead "a brutal, vicious attack on the opposition." Alas, his fantasy network did not come into being at that time, and the 37th president was soon engulfed in the Watergate scandal. At first, Republicans dismissed the scandal as a Washington Post "witch hunt." But then the White House tapes proved beyond doubt that Nixon had used the levers of government to pursue vendettas against his opponents and cover up his extensive skulduggery. Disgusted GOP leaders, including Sen. Howard Baker of the Senate Watergate committee, chose principles over party. Nixon was forced to resign.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/11/newt-gi...
> “One of the great problems we have in the Republican Party is that we don’t encourage you to be nasty,” he told the group. “We encourage you to be neat, obedient, and loyal, and faithful, and all those Boy Scout words, which would be great around the campfire but are lousy in politics.”
Thanks for sharing those sources. The HN crowd overestimates the impact of social media and under estimates the impact of Fox News and Fox News clones. The typical Fox News viewer watches 4 HOURS every day: https://www.foxnews.com/media/fox-news-august-ratings-most-w...
[deleted]
implying CNN and so on have any different motifs? Amusing.
Please show me the evidence that CNN was created in response to a Democratic scandal in order to consolidate their messaging and provide a friendly news outlet. Until then, you're "enlightened centrist" and "both sides bad" narrative reeks of conservative FUD.
John Stewart spend many years talking about how CNN was built for 9/11.
It's there to treat everything as 9/11 and blow every story put of proportion
It's there to treat everything as 9/11 and blow every story put of proportion
He was off by at least a decade. It was the television of the first Iraq war that first captured the continuous news media.
So you're admitting that it's not the same and that CNN wasn't created explicitly by Democrats as a response to a scandal in an attempt to control their narrative for decades? Thanks for that.
Yeah but now you dont even have to leave the house to stock up on chef boyardi and prepare for the rapture.
I heard the argument that US used to more homogeneous ( which was reinforced by the media forcing the same values ). Now that the franchise increased with more groups trying to grab a slice, the values clashed. In other words, the people were always there, but were either not visible, ignored or marginalized.
I am willing to buy this argument.
I am willing to buy this argument.
All the stuff you hear about today has been around before the internet too. AM radio was the home of these lunatics before (still is).
Nah, any form of mass communication works. Newspapers (and other written publications) started plenty of wars after the printing press was invented, radio caused a few social experiments starting in the 1930s, and TV starting in the 60s.
Regardless of what view point you have, it's become painful to watch/consume news on either side if you don't subscribe to their same left/right view point as what is being presented. The MSM has overplayed its hand over the past several years to the point they've been written off by their opposing sides. So that forces a dividing line so you don't even bother looking at the opposing news sources, and when ever you do it's so biased it makes your head spin. But hey, ratings are through the roof!
That has allowed traditionally marginalized news sources that embrace less-vetted news to shine. Say what you want about Alex Jones, but he was covering Jeffery Epstein's lolita express/island in 2008 and no one would touch that story back then. So now we have the marginalized news sources ending up larger viewerships than the national evening news. So while you do get real news which is less skewed left or right than in the MSM, it is wrapped with plenty of crap and is less vetted.
The news industry, politicians, and big tech censorship has made this problem. Now they get to lay in their beds. It sucks, I'm not a fan of what's going on in DC right now, but I also don't blame those doing what they feel they must for their country. They are merely products of the system that made them. Until the MSM and politicians decide to stop twisting everything for market share or political gain this will continue to escalate. And we know that won't happen sadly.
That has allowed traditionally marginalized news sources that embrace less-vetted news to shine. Say what you want about Alex Jones, but he was covering Jeffery Epstein's lolita express/island in 2008 and no one would touch that story back then. So now we have the marginalized news sources ending up larger viewerships than the national evening news. So while you do get real news which is less skewed left or right than in the MSM, it is wrapped with plenty of crap and is less vetted.
The news industry, politicians, and big tech censorship has made this problem. Now they get to lay in their beds. It sucks, I'm not a fan of what's going on in DC right now, but I also don't blame those doing what they feel they must for their country. They are merely products of the system that made them. Until the MSM and politicians decide to stop twisting everything for market share or political gain this will continue to escalate. And we know that won't happen sadly.
As much as I'd like to blame the news (they are partially responsible, especially for keeping contention going), I think we as a people are also to blame. How often do we point to people with different points of view from us and say 'How Dare You!'. We could all cool it a bit, or at least be a little more generous, and I think people wouldn't be quite as alarmed, and this situation might be less likely. We've stoked the fires of emnity and now we're reaping the rewards.
Just my two cents. Hope your having a good day.
Just my two cents. Hope your having a good day.
> I think we as a people are also to blame
Honestly, I think it's only people to blame. No media would restrict you from just going to your neighbour who's having opposite values and views, and simply talk and try and understand.
People voluntarily selected extreme toxic partisanship, media just feeding the hungry ones. Even half of this thread could be reduced to "these other people are just dumb their values are wrong that's the problem"
Honestly, I think it's only people to blame. No media would restrict you from just going to your neighbour who's having opposite values and views, and simply talk and try and understand.
People voluntarily selected extreme toxic partisanship, media just feeding the hungry ones. Even half of this thread could be reduced to "these other people are just dumb their values are wrong that's the problem"
Naturally these things are mutually reinforcing in a vicious cycle. It's a little bit of all of the above. We probably can't point to a single root cause, or a single cure. Until we learn how to reason about massively distributed complex social feedback loops, the best we can do is try to address each systemic problem using our best selves.
This strongly resonates with me. Somewhere along the way we allowed ourselves to lose more and more empathy and kindness toward people who think differently than us.
This reminds me of that video about a Russian spy being interviewed saying how Russia's spy efforts are being focused on making the USA population hate eachother. And I'm not saying this IS the result of Russia but it sure seems like this prediction is getting more true every day.
After Trump was elected, I started checking Fox News regularly (my go-to's are the BBC and NPR). On the whole, I think it's been informative as to how others perceive the world. It was definitely interesting when their tone shifted on the election outcome.
> It was definitely interesting when their tone shifted on the election outcome.
This was pretty intriguing to me, because I do believe Fox had a lot to do with the radicalization of their side of things. It drove their support, and the moment they backed off from the crazy train, people abandoned them in droves for whatever agreed with the direction they were heading, be it Newsmax or OAN. Fox brought on it's own downfall here.
This was pretty intriguing to me, because I do believe Fox had a lot to do with the radicalization of their side of things. It drove their support, and the moment they backed off from the crazy train, people abandoned them in droves for whatever agreed with the direction they were heading, be it Newsmax or OAN. Fox brought on it's own downfall here.
I tune in the AM radio for this- the rhetoric on it now was only available on shortwave in the 90s. TYT and friends on youtube for the left's view- I can't stand MSNBC.
Please stop equating the "MSM" with the right wing propaganda machine like FOX. This hyperpolarization is happening in every country that has a sizable Murdoch media machine.
It really isn’t just Fox. They don’t have a lot of shame about their partisanship or desire to hide it, but there is ideological distortion going on everywhere.
Yes, everyone is biased, this is not a deep insight, it's the common denominator we can subtract from a meaningful discussion about specific events.
It actually is a deep insight if it’s true.
It doesn’t matter very much if one side is more crass, or tells more obvious lies.
It matters a lot if everybody has derelicted the attempt to represent views and understandings across the spectrum, and it’s important that we be able to distinguish that situation from just blaming a particular actor.
Perhaps you have something deeper to offer though?
It doesn’t matter very much if one side is more crass, or tells more obvious lies.
It matters a lot if everybody has derelicted the attempt to represent views and understandings across the spectrum, and it’s important that we be able to distinguish that situation from just blaming a particular actor.
Perhaps you have something deeper to offer though?
Dishonest reporting is not a quality inherent to arbitrary political labels, there is no "spectrum", there are only "particular actors" and people decide in real time which particular actors they prefer to focus their attention on.
> Dishonest reporting is not a quality inherent to arbitrary political label
Agreed.
> there is no "spectrum"
Only true in a pedantic and useless sense.
It certainly is possible to cluster and organize political preferences.
> there are only "particular actors" and people decide in real time which particular actors they prefer to focus their attention on.
Without further explanation this is just a frame which doesn’t add meaning on its own.
Overall it’s not clear what you have added here.
Agreed.
> there is no "spectrum"
Only true in a pedantic and useless sense.
It certainly is possible to cluster and organize political preferences.
> there are only "particular actors" and people decide in real time which particular actors they prefer to focus their attention on.
Without further explanation this is just a frame which doesn’t add meaning on its own.
Overall it’s not clear what you have added here.
> Only true in a pedantic and useless sense.
No. It's true in the sense that you cannot impugn a particular part of the spectrum for the actions of individuals because there is no way to reliably quantify dishonesty much less attribute its distribution across a poorly defined political continuum.
> Without further explanation this is just a frame which doesn’t add meaning on its own.
In other words, dishonesty is everywhere and it's trivial to collate a mountain of cherry-picked evidence from a particular part of the continuum to support the conclusion that a certain part of the continuum is dishonest.
> Overall it’s not clear what you have added here.
Your pretentious snark is bad form and unnecessary.
No. It's true in the sense that you cannot impugn a particular part of the spectrum for the actions of individuals because there is no way to reliably quantify dishonesty much less attribute its distribution across a poorly defined political continuum.
> Without further explanation this is just a frame which doesn’t add meaning on its own.
In other words, dishonesty is everywhere and it's trivial to collate a mountain of cherry-picked evidence from a particular part of the continuum to support the conclusion that a certain part of the continuum is dishonest.
> Overall it’s not clear what you have added here.
Your pretentious snark is bad form and unnecessary.
“Overall it’s not clear what you have added here.“
This isn’t pretentious snark. It’s an expression of surprise, and feedback that you really don’t seem to be making a clear point.
You reduced my original comment to “everyone is biased, this is not a deep insight”.
I thought you might have something deeper to add, so I was surprised not to see it.
“It's true in the sense that you cannot impugn a particular part of the spectrum for the actions of individuals because there is no way to reliably quantify dishonesty much less attribute its distribution across a poorly defined political continuum.”
This seems like a re-statement of the original comment I made in response to the post about FOX. I guess we agree about that.
It continues not to be clear what you are trying to add.
This isn’t pretentious snark. It’s an expression of surprise, and feedback that you really don’t seem to be making a clear point.
You reduced my original comment to “everyone is biased, this is not a deep insight”.
I thought you might have something deeper to add, so I was surprised not to see it.
“It's true in the sense that you cannot impugn a particular part of the spectrum for the actions of individuals because there is no way to reliably quantify dishonesty much less attribute its distribution across a poorly defined political continuum.”
This seems like a re-statement of the original comment I made in response to the post about FOX. I guess we agree about that.
It continues not to be clear what you are trying to add.
> It really isn’t just Fox. They don’t have a lot of shame about their partisanship or desire to hide it, but there is ideological distortion going on everywhere.
Yes, we agree on this point, what I'm critiquing is your injection of this obvious fact into a discussion about a specific event that can be attributed to the particular type of misinformation spread by FOX, the fact that "there is ideological distortion going on everywhere" is beside the point, obviously that's true, so what? If an oil spill dumps millions of barrels into the ocean and someone exclaims "wow, these oil spills are really destroying the environment" your response is akin to "yes, but pollution is a global problem that includes more than just oil spills", yes, nobody is arguing otherwise, so what's your point?
Yes, we agree on this point, what I'm critiquing is your injection of this obvious fact into a discussion about a specific event that can be attributed to the particular type of misinformation spread by FOX, the fact that "there is ideological distortion going on everywhere" is beside the point, obviously that's true, so what? If an oil spill dumps millions of barrels into the ocean and someone exclaims "wow, these oil spills are really destroying the environment" your response is akin to "yes, but pollution is a global problem that includes more than just oil spills", yes, nobody is arguing otherwise, so what's your point?
“A specific event that can be attributed to the particular type of misinformation spread by FOX”
So really you are just saying this was caused by FOX.
You could have just said that.
In my view our political environment is much more complex than that and involves a pattern of escalations which can’t be so reductively disentangled.
I accept that you disagree with this.
When the NYT misrepresents something, for example, it contributes to the narrative of distortion just as much as when FOX openly claims there is distortion.
FOX news as far as I am aware has maintained that there is no evidence of election fraud, and called the election for Biden very early, so it’s not clear how you attribute this event to them. I don’t watch it, so I could be wrong about this, but it wouldn’t change the point.
The problem is not so easily attributable to a particular media outlet.
I wish it were that easy.
So really you are just saying this was caused by FOX.
You could have just said that.
In my view our political environment is much more complex than that and involves a pattern of escalations which can’t be so reductively disentangled.
I accept that you disagree with this.
When the NYT misrepresents something, for example, it contributes to the narrative of distortion just as much as when FOX openly claims there is distortion.
FOX news as far as I am aware has maintained that there is no evidence of election fraud, and called the election for Biden very early, so it’s not clear how you attribute this event to them. I don’t watch it, so I could be wrong about this, but it wouldn’t change the point.
The problem is not so easily attributable to a particular media outlet.
I wish it were that easy.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Bias isn't that big of a problem, corruption and dishonesty is.
If all we had to deal with is bias in decision making which resulted in suboptimal outcome, things would still be okay, as long as people making decisions and in position of authority (which includes voters) are still honestly thinking that one strategy will yield the best outcome for all of society.
But as soon as people start being dishonest for self-interest reasons, they've subsumed the goal for their own, that's the real problem. I'd rather have someone in charge whose not the best at coming up with strategies and approaches that meet the goal, possibly due to their bias or other reasons, but is at least trying their best, then someone whose trying to manipulate support and slowly put goons they control in various positions so that they can just focus on their own self-interest and promotion while pretending to everyone that this is in our interest.
If all we had to deal with is bias in decision making which resulted in suboptimal outcome, things would still be okay, as long as people making decisions and in position of authority (which includes voters) are still honestly thinking that one strategy will yield the best outcome for all of society.
But as soon as people start being dishonest for self-interest reasons, they've subsumed the goal for their own, that's the real problem. I'd rather have someone in charge whose not the best at coming up with strategies and approaches that meet the goal, possibly due to their bias or other reasons, but is at least trying their best, then someone whose trying to manipulate support and slowly put goons they control in various positions so that they can just focus on their own self-interest and promotion while pretending to everyone that this is in our interest.
Unfortunately, you've fallen into the trap, friend. FOX may be to the right of MSNBC, but on a larger scale historically-informed left-right spectrum, the two are not actually that far apart ideologically. Most "conservative principles" these days are just the modern liberal status quo delayed by ~20 years; for example, anti-homosexual rhetoric is dead and dying on that side in a way that lines up well with what I remember from the Democrats in the late 90s.
The hyperpolarization is not to do with the right vs left dichotomy so much as it is a deliberate, encouraged-by-both-sides establishment of a false dichotomy designed to pen people into a small range of discourse. Some call this the Overton window; the deliberate establishment of contrasting narratives in a 2-pronged strategy was perfected in America by Arthur Finkelstein in the mid-20th century and is becoming an art form today.
If you can see FOX as a "right wing propaganda machine" but can't see the other MSM networks as being equally polarizing machines aimed at a different half of the audience, you're missing the shot.
The solution is to see the false dichotomy for what it is, look at who is pushing it, and look at what direction both "sides" actually push for. If you're on the right, they want you to have your attention and energy soaked up in this useless Stop the Steal push for Trump, who actually didn't accomplish any of the things his populist base asked for (immigration control, really bringing back American jobs, giving a shit about the working class). If you're on the Left, they want to soak you up with Biden instead of the more progressive policies that someone like Bernie or Tulsi Gabbard espoused. Either way, you're being played if you allow your energy to go toward supporting one of these useless figureheads instead of critiquing the system itself.
The hyperpolarization is not to do with the right vs left dichotomy so much as it is a deliberate, encouraged-by-both-sides establishment of a false dichotomy designed to pen people into a small range of discourse. Some call this the Overton window; the deliberate establishment of contrasting narratives in a 2-pronged strategy was perfected in America by Arthur Finkelstein in the mid-20th century and is becoming an art form today.
If you can see FOX as a "right wing propaganda machine" but can't see the other MSM networks as being equally polarizing machines aimed at a different half of the audience, you're missing the shot.
The solution is to see the false dichotomy for what it is, look at who is pushing it, and look at what direction both "sides" actually push for. If you're on the right, they want you to have your attention and energy soaked up in this useless Stop the Steal push for Trump, who actually didn't accomplish any of the things his populist base asked for (immigration control, really bringing back American jobs, giving a shit about the working class). If you're on the Left, they want to soak you up with Biden instead of the more progressive policies that someone like Bernie or Tulsi Gabbard espoused. Either way, you're being played if you allow your energy to go toward supporting one of these useless figureheads instead of critiquing the system itself.
Right before the virus hit, unemployment was hitting record lows. (various unemployment records being about half a century old) The pay, adjusted for inflation, was starting to creep upward in a way that it hadn't for many years. If that isn't "really bringing back American jobs", how else would you judge it?
Apologies if I'm misrepresenting your point of view here; it sounds to me like you feel Trump was behind these improvements in the metrics.
What changes which he implemented do you feel where behind these improvements?
If I posited the idea that he was simply riding a wave of positive economic progress established under the Obama administration, how would you counter that?
What changes which he implemented do you feel where behind these improvements?
If I posited the idea that he was simply riding a wave of positive economic progress established under the Obama administration, how would you counter that?
You might be trying to be too smart for politics I'm afraid. Looking at real metrics? Trying to establish cause and effect? Having a good faith retrospective on prior policies? I'm not sure you'll find any of that in political discourse.
1. Regulations were severely cut. Those choke the life out of American business, making it uncompetitive. Maybe you like some of the regulations, but they have costs. Those costs aren't very visible to most people, because most people aren't trying to run a business, but they are huge.
2. Imports from less-regulated low-cost places like China were impacted by tariffs, favoring American workers. Retaliatory tariffs were largely unsuccessful.
2. Imports from less-regulated low-cost places like China were impacted by tariffs, favoring American workers. Retaliatory tariffs were largely unsuccessful.
Perhaps you are right on regulation but it is not clear that it has moved either of the metrics you mentioned. Looking at unemployment there is no deviation from the established trend during Trump's years in office.
https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/civilian-une...
Wage growth is more complex. However, this too doesn't seem to be immediately correlated with Trump's policies.
> During Obama’s last four years in office the average weekly earnings for production and nonsupervisory workers went up 4.9%
https://www.factcheck.org/2019/06/are-wages-rising-or-flat/
https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/civilian-une...
Wage growth is more complex. However, this too doesn't seem to be immediately correlated with Trump's policies.
> During Obama’s last four years in office the average weekly earnings for production and nonsupervisory workers went up 4.9%
https://www.factcheck.org/2019/06/are-wages-rising-or-flat/
I would counter that when looking at the causes of behavior in a highly dynamic system, you should look at more proximate causes, and ask you to enumerate the causes established by the Obama Administration you deem responsible for the positive upswing.
I'd furthermore question that anyone is very good at accurately assigning proximate causes for people doing what people do, but the more economically minded tend to get upset when you do that as they're rather fond of their equations.
I'd furthermore question that anyone is very good at accurately assigning proximate causes for people doing what people do, but the more economically minded tend to get upset when you do that as they're rather fond of their equations.
To be fair, I said established under the Obama administration, not by the administration. In reality I think both were riding the wave following the 2008 collapse. As such we could probably point the finger at financial deregulation under George W Bush.
Yes, by many metrics things did look to be improving, but overall it's strongly true that Trump did not deliver what his populist base was looking for, and would not deliver it if given another four years. One thing that is telling in this regard is that the far dissident right, who were adamant supporters in 2016, have completely dropped support.
You've fallen for the trap of the 2d political spectrum. It isn't about bias, it is about intent. MSNBC, CNN, etc are capitalist enterprises biased towards revenue and clicks - it's in their DNA.
FOX was created explicitly by Ailes and Murdoch to prevent a second Nixon style teardown of the GOP. It's the reason Disney wanted absolutely nothing to do with the news arm when it acquired the rest of the Fox media empire - it's a capitalist enterprise only in the sense that it's profitable as a side effect of their main goal.
FOX was created explicitly by Ailes and Murdoch to prevent a second Nixon style teardown of the GOP. It's the reason Disney wanted absolutely nothing to do with the news arm when it acquired the rest of the Fox media empire - it's a capitalist enterprise only in the sense that it's profitable as a side effect of their main goal.
> You've fallen for the trap of the 2d political spectrum.
You mean the meme-graph one? Don't think so. Every time I take a quiz based on that it lands me near the center, yet I don't resonate with any self-proclaimed centrist I've talked to.
> FOX was created explicitly by Ailes and Murdoch to prevent a second Nixon style teardown of the GOP.
I don't think the intent decades ago particularly matters compared with their actions presently, which are as aimed (at the level of the individual Fox employee) towards revenue and clicks as anyone - just going after a different market niche than MSNBC et al. The ownership is going after propaganda and narrative control, of course; the whole point of what I am saying is that both sides are doing that.
> it's a capitalist enterprise only in the sense that it's profitable as a side effect of their main goal.
The fact that you can't see that that's true of the other side of the media is very telling. WaPo and friends lose money every year, but will never, ever be shut down. What could the reason for that be, other than to use it as a propaganda mouthpiece?
Honestly. If you can turn on an MSM network right now and not hear the propaganda baked into every sentence, you need to turn off all media, read some old books, disconnect for a few months, and come back when you have a perspective wide enough to realize that both sides are being harmed, and having their animosity aimed at one another, rather than at anyone who is actually doing the harm.
(This may be easier for me to see as a non-American, of course. I shouldn't blame someone who has been soaking in yank propaganda their whole lives for having difficulty taking off the blinders.)
You mean the meme-graph one? Don't think so. Every time I take a quiz based on that it lands me near the center, yet I don't resonate with any self-proclaimed centrist I've talked to.
> FOX was created explicitly by Ailes and Murdoch to prevent a second Nixon style teardown of the GOP.
I don't think the intent decades ago particularly matters compared with their actions presently, which are as aimed (at the level of the individual Fox employee) towards revenue and clicks as anyone - just going after a different market niche than MSNBC et al. The ownership is going after propaganda and narrative control, of course; the whole point of what I am saying is that both sides are doing that.
> it's a capitalist enterprise only in the sense that it's profitable as a side effect of their main goal.
The fact that you can't see that that's true of the other side of the media is very telling. WaPo and friends lose money every year, but will never, ever be shut down. What could the reason for that be, other than to use it as a propaganda mouthpiece?
Honestly. If you can turn on an MSM network right now and not hear the propaganda baked into every sentence, you need to turn off all media, read some old books, disconnect for a few months, and come back when you have a perspective wide enough to realize that both sides are being harmed, and having their animosity aimed at one another, rather than at anyone who is actually doing the harm.
(This may be easier for me to see as a non-American, of course. I shouldn't blame someone who has been soaking in yank propaganda their whole lives for having difficulty taking off the blinders.)
A short trip to American where I was able to consume and notice the propaganda content of "both sides" of the media helped me realize the propaganda in my own. It's very difficult indeed to step outside the box.
I don't know that I'd associate it with the right wing, though. All parties are currently guilty of what you might call overfitting, where medium-term profits are directly measured against the content generating those profits, which understandably eventually segments the population and fits content to what keeps them engaged.
No matter what is happening, it is important to remember that both sides are to blame. Always, no matter where the truth is relative to the sides.
I just finished Lippmann’s 1922 classic Public Opinion. In it he argues that different people may draw completely different conclusions from the same facts due to three things:
1. Sampling. There’s a big universe of facts, and each media outlet reports on a tiny piece of this universe.
2. Stereotypes. When you read a news story, you unconsciously pattern match and associate it to related examples you have in your mind.
3. Context. When you read a news story, you subconsciously have some fascet of your own identity in mind (as a Republican, as a pro-choice person, etc.).
All three are in effect when stories are reported on and consumed. It’s a series of lenses that samples, then distorts, the truth in a way that given the same real-world event, different people may come to completely different conclusions about what happened.
I’d add a #4: fake news. This amplifies #1 significantly. It was less of a problem in Lippmann’s time since the News world was much smaller. He might have called this “rumor”, not news.
1. Sampling. There’s a big universe of facts, and each media outlet reports on a tiny piece of this universe.
2. Stereotypes. When you read a news story, you unconsciously pattern match and associate it to related examples you have in your mind.
3. Context. When you read a news story, you subconsciously have some fascet of your own identity in mind (as a Republican, as a pro-choice person, etc.).
All three are in effect when stories are reported on and consumed. It’s a series of lenses that samples, then distorts, the truth in a way that given the same real-world event, different people may come to completely different conclusions about what happened.
I’d add a #4: fake news. This amplifies #1 significantly. It was less of a problem in Lippmann’s time since the News world was much smaller. He might have called this “rumor”, not news.
> #4: fake news. This amplifies #1 significantly. It was less of a problem in Lippmann’s time since the News world was much smaller. He might have called this “rumor”, not news.
He called it propaganda and it was a big problem during his time.
> Without some form of censorship, propaganda in the strict sense of the word is impossible. In order to conduct a propaganda there must be some barrier between the public and the event. Access to the real environment must be limited, before anyone can create a pseudo-environment that he thinks wise or desirable. For while people who have direct access can misconceive what they see, no one else can decide how they shall misconceive it, unless he can decide where they shall look, and at what. The military censorship is the simplest form of barrier, but by no means the most important, because it is known to exist, and is therefore in certain measure agreed to and discounted.
IMO we got here because social media allows people to run from one form of censorship straight into the arms of another without realizing they're still being censored. The same thing happened in Lippmann's time. People did not realize their circles were excluding information. The result was a couple periods of very-difficult-to-reconcile division.
He called it propaganda and it was a big problem during his time.
> Without some form of censorship, propaganda in the strict sense of the word is impossible. In order to conduct a propaganda there must be some barrier between the public and the event. Access to the real environment must be limited, before anyone can create a pseudo-environment that he thinks wise or desirable. For while people who have direct access can misconceive what they see, no one else can decide how they shall misconceive it, unless he can decide where they shall look, and at what. The military censorship is the simplest form of barrier, but by no means the most important, because it is known to exist, and is therefore in certain measure agreed to and discounted.
IMO we got here because social media allows people to run from one form of censorship straight into the arms of another without realizing they're still being censored. The same thing happened in Lippmann's time. People did not realize their circles were excluding information. The result was a couple periods of very-difficult-to-reconcile division.
Reminds me of Jaynes point that IIRC the beliefs of two perfectly rational agents with very different Bayesian priors can diverge even if they are presented with exactly the same facts/information/data...
Lippmann's time and ours were presenting different facts to different groups.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25667943
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25667943
Good timing! I've just finished Le Bon and Bernays.
> people may draw completely different conclusions from the same facts
Le Bon points out a more basic issue. He wrote about the kinds of crowds who used to storm the Bastille and so on—and appear to have returned to American history today after a long vacation. He concluded that the members of such crowds simply don't do things like considering facts or drawing conclusions. Instead, they associate chains of images and follow suggestions from prestigious leaders. TV advertisments do exactly what he suggested, and so does Donald Trump. It appears to work.
This puts me in a dilemma. As a physicist with egalitarian tendencies, I want everyone to take action that will provide the things they want and need, according to valid arguments founded on the laws of nature. But apparently, one of those laws of nature says that valid reasons have nothing in common with the reasons people do things.
Bernays resolved that dilemma by telling people like me to manipulate everyone else into doing what (we believe) is in their best interest. I'm really uncomfortable with that position, but it's hard to see an alternative.
> people may draw completely different conclusions from the same facts
Le Bon points out a more basic issue. He wrote about the kinds of crowds who used to storm the Bastille and so on—and appear to have returned to American history today after a long vacation. He concluded that the members of such crowds simply don't do things like considering facts or drawing conclusions. Instead, they associate chains of images and follow suggestions from prestigious leaders. TV advertisments do exactly what he suggested, and so does Donald Trump. It appears to work.
This puts me in a dilemma. As a physicist with egalitarian tendencies, I want everyone to take action that will provide the things they want and need, according to valid arguments founded on the laws of nature. But apparently, one of those laws of nature says that valid reasons have nothing in common with the reasons people do things.
Bernays resolved that dilemma by telling people like me to manipulate everyone else into doing what (we believe) is in their best interest. I'm really uncomfortable with that position, but it's hard to see an alternative.
Is that Crystallizing Public Opinion? Will read next.
Lippmann says the answer is two parts:
1. For voters, improve their ability to make the right choice via education and representative (not direct) democracy.
2. For politicians, improve data so they can make better choices.
Interestingly, (2) sounds a lot like data.gov, a century before data.gov!
Lippmann says the answer is two parts:
1. For voters, improve their ability to make the right choice via education and representative (not direct) democracy.
2. For politicians, improve data so they can make better choices.
Interestingly, (2) sounds a lot like data.gov, a century before data.gov!
> Is that Crystallizing Public Opinion?
Propaganda.
> For voters, improve their ability to make the right choice via education and representative (not direct) democracy
The common theme of Le Bon and Bernays was that such groups as "the voters" are inherently not capable of making deliberate choices, and those choices will be made for them by propagandists. I find that depressing, but their arguments for it are convincing.
Propaganda.
> For voters, improve their ability to make the right choice via education and representative (not direct) democracy
The common theme of Le Bon and Bernays was that such groups as "the voters" are inherently not capable of making deliberate choices, and those choices will be made for them by propagandists. I find that depressing, but their arguments for it are convincing.
> The common theme of Le Bon and Bernays was that such groups as "the voters" are inherently not capable of making deliberate choices, and those choices will be made for them by propagandists. I find that depressing, but their arguments for it are convincing.
It wasn't always the case that "fake news" aka propaganda made so much headway. The degree to which that was happening from ~2015 until now is a unique phenomenon not paralleled since Lippmann's time.
It wasn't always the case that "fake news" aka propaganda made so much headway. The degree to which that was happening from ~2015 until now is a unique phenomenon not paralleled since Lippmann's time.
Thanks, ordered!
My take:
1) On web sites like this I've noticed a rule "Assume good faith". But in real life there are lots of people who say things in bad faith. In the case of PR people and trial lawyers and partisan politicians it seems to be in the job description to say things in bad faith. I have no solutions on how to fix this- I don't believe in God but I can imagine a deity punishing people who choose to exercise their free speech to profit on bad faith lies- but I have no theory of government to stop this behavior on earth.
2) We have a society based around money. People in this site like to whine about what Zuckerberg or whomever is doing but the guiding principle of society seems to be "he who has the money makes the rules". So if Zukerberg wants to weaponize Facebook against society the full power of the financial system will help him do it as long as he has the money/ property to control Facebook. I think in theory we could transition to a society where CEO and board members have their shares and/ or control of companies confiscated if they act in ways which harms society. (Perhaps putting things to a vote, i.e. a universal ballet: should Zuckerberg have his shares of Facebook seized and auctioned off under the theory he is harming society y/n)). Since this has never been tried as far as I know I don't know if my solution could even work.
1) On web sites like this I've noticed a rule "Assume good faith". But in real life there are lots of people who say things in bad faith. In the case of PR people and trial lawyers and partisan politicians it seems to be in the job description to say things in bad faith. I have no solutions on how to fix this- I don't believe in God but I can imagine a deity punishing people who choose to exercise their free speech to profit on bad faith lies- but I have no theory of government to stop this behavior on earth.
2) We have a society based around money. People in this site like to whine about what Zuckerberg or whomever is doing but the guiding principle of society seems to be "he who has the money makes the rules". So if Zukerberg wants to weaponize Facebook against society the full power of the financial system will help him do it as long as he has the money/ property to control Facebook. I think in theory we could transition to a society where CEO and board members have their shares and/ or control of companies confiscated if they act in ways which harms society. (Perhaps putting things to a vote, i.e. a universal ballet: should Zuckerberg have his shares of Facebook seized and auctioned off under the theory he is harming society y/n)). Since this has never been tried as far as I know I don't know if my solution could even work.
Hard agree on 1. Don't have an answer other than "superhuman AI ruling humanity", but that is not fun, because at that point we stop being the protagonists of our own story.
About 2:
> Since this has never been tried as far as I know I don't know if my solution could even work.
This was tried, during various revolutions that included the phase of killing the rich people and collectivizing their wealth. I worry your suggestion here would end up being used the same way - with prominent CEOs getting their companies auctioned from under them by angry mobs.
About 2:
> Since this has never been tried as far as I know I don't know if my solution could even work.
This was tried, during various revolutions that included the phase of killing the rich people and collectivizing their wealth. I worry your suggestion here would end up being used the same way - with prominent CEOs getting their companies auctioned from under them by angry mobs.
I'm talking about confiscating property in a banal, rule based democracy sort of way, not by mobs.
Humans seem to be wired via evolution to tolerate being controlled by higher status humans otherwise I'd expect confiscation of property to be a popular proposition in a world where high status people own the majority of property and wealth inequality keeps increasing.
We'd have more discussions about where institutiins are serving us well and less about "those poor CEOs, think of their feelings" if we weren't seemingly wired to care about high status people's desires more than our own needs.
Humans seem to be wired via evolution to tolerate being controlled by higher status humans otherwise I'd expect confiscation of property to be a popular proposition in a world where high status people own the majority of property and wealth inequality keeps increasing.
We'd have more discussions about where institutiins are serving us well and less about "those poor CEOs, think of their feelings" if we weren't seemingly wired to care about high status people's desires more than our own needs.
> I'm talking about confiscating property in a banal, rule based democracy sort of way, not by mobs.
Banal, rules-based democracies still need a fundamental set of rights if they're to avoid instantly devolving to mob rule. I really don't want a rules-based democracy voting to kill me and my family, so I'm glad that I have the fundamental right not to be subject to that risk (even if it were supported by the majority.)
One of the values that's pretty prevalent in the United States and a lot of other developed nations is a respect for property rights; if you worked for something, you get to keep it, even if other people would want it more.
Both of these rights exist on a spectrum (e.g. the death penalty can override your right to life in the extreme case, and taxes can override your right to your property to a small extent), but by almost any measure putting your right to property to a vote is extremely far on the "not respecting property rights" side of the spectrum.
Also, I have extremely little confidence that the best way to assuage our political divide is to introduce the perpetual threat of "the majority had better think that what you're doing is useful, otherwise we'll take everything you have."
The rule of law means that sometimes things will arise that slip through the cracks in unintended ways. The solution to this is to fix those cracks and make the law more clearly define what's desired. If this makes a given business model non-viable, then so be it; that's the price of progress. I'd imagine that those is favor of the rule of law, though, can see the slippery slope of letting the mob vote on what do with the property of those who were following the law at the time.
Banal, rules-based democracies still need a fundamental set of rights if they're to avoid instantly devolving to mob rule. I really don't want a rules-based democracy voting to kill me and my family, so I'm glad that I have the fundamental right not to be subject to that risk (even if it were supported by the majority.)
One of the values that's pretty prevalent in the United States and a lot of other developed nations is a respect for property rights; if you worked for something, you get to keep it, even if other people would want it more.
Both of these rights exist on a spectrum (e.g. the death penalty can override your right to life in the extreme case, and taxes can override your right to your property to a small extent), but by almost any measure putting your right to property to a vote is extremely far on the "not respecting property rights" side of the spectrum.
Also, I have extremely little confidence that the best way to assuage our political divide is to introduce the perpetual threat of "the majority had better think that what you're doing is useful, otherwise we'll take everything you have."
The rule of law means that sometimes things will arise that slip through the cracks in unintended ways. The solution to this is to fix those cracks and make the law more clearly define what's desired. If this makes a given business model non-viable, then so be it; that's the price of progress. I'd imagine that those is favor of the rule of law, though, can see the slippery slope of letting the mob vote on what do with the property of those who were following the law at the time.
The Communist Party of China follows the rules of the government they controlled perfectly well -- and have no problem winning elections. If you actually want property rights to be up for popular vote, it's important to understand that removal of property is going to be backed by the threat of violence by the state (which will occasionally need to be enacted). You will have companies removed for reasons that are "against the public interest" where you disagree with the actual actions.
Democratic rule is simply mob rule by proxy.
Democratic rule is simply mob rule by proxy.
China isn't a rights based democracy so that's neither here nor there.
Sure, hypothetically if Mark Zuckerberg refuses to leave the Facebook building after being evicted of his Facebook ownership he could be physically removed by the police.
Why this deserves our sympathy more than a sixteen year old physically arrested for smoking weed is not obvious- or even a tenant physically evicted for being unable to pay rent. Arresting people for drug crimes is treated as normal state violence and happily supported by Americans- but it seems people have evolved to sympathize with a high status billionaire over some kid commiting a victimless crime.
Sure, hypothetically if Mark Zuckerberg refuses to leave the Facebook building after being evicted of his Facebook ownership he could be physically removed by the police.
Why this deserves our sympathy more than a sixteen year old physically arrested for smoking weed is not obvious- or even a tenant physically evicted for being unable to pay rent. Arresting people for drug crimes is treated as normal state violence and happily supported by Americans- but it seems people have evolved to sympathize with a high status billionaire over some kid commiting a victimless crime.
The thing that makes a rights-based democracy "rights-based" is the idea that there are certain lines that are so important to individual liberty that society at large has chosen to not interfere with them. Traditionally, one of these rights is the right to private capital. It's the oldest right recorded in English common law. Giving up this right, even if it's purported to be in the interests of society at large, will remove part of the "rights-based" part of the rights-based democracy above. It's not something that should be done lightly. Civil forfeiture is rife for abuse, even in its current form.
I agree there should be a right to private capital- to an extent.
But the fact you think a right to obtain billions of dollars and control the labor of 10 of thousands of workers is a fundemental right- when housing for the poor isn't- I think again goes to my point we've evolved to care more about high status rulers than ourselves. (I mean that literally, tribal humans or proto-humans murdered or outcompeted with less tribal humans at the whims of their tribal leaders and we are the result.)
Anyway I am under no illusions that we are going to have a change in policy and stop caring about aristocrat's feeling more than our own well-being (Donald Trump is sad, let's storm some buildings you guys. Jeff Bezos treats warehouse workers bad- but he needs to be able to do that cause it would hurt his feelings if the workers ran the company instead.) So there's no reason to debate it other than intellectual fun.
But the fact you think a right to obtain billions of dollars and control the labor of 10 of thousands of workers is a fundemental right- when housing for the poor isn't- I think again goes to my point we've evolved to care more about high status rulers than ourselves. (I mean that literally, tribal humans or proto-humans murdered or outcompeted with less tribal humans at the whims of their tribal leaders and we are the result.)
Anyway I am under no illusions that we are going to have a change in policy and stop caring about aristocrat's feeling more than our own well-being (Donald Trump is sad, let's storm some buildings you guys. Jeff Bezos treats warehouse workers bad- but he needs to be able to do that cause it would hurt his feelings if the workers ran the company instead.) So there's no reason to debate it other than intellectual fun.
The right to bodily autonomy feels even more important to liberty than the right to capital, at least to me.
I followed a train of thought recently that's somewhat related to this. It appears to me the one branch of government that has stood up reasonably well recently is the court system. Courts require a standard of evidence, and while it's clear that justices will try to interpret things as favorable to their partisan beliefs, for the most part they are not willing to simply accept alternate realities. Some people were worried that Trump's lawsuits would find friendly judges despite the lack of evidence, and that overwhelmingly didn't happen.
So that got me wondering, ironically given your listing of lawyers as one of the named bad-faith groups, could government be made to act more like the legal system, or could the legal system be incorporated more into government. One specific idea I was considering was whether you could have the option of a defamation-style judicial review of statements of fact made by elected officials. Obviously you wouldn't litigate every statement, but what if there were some sort of challenge process - perhaps with a fee to bring a challenge, and/or consequences for spurious challenges, so they wouldn't become overwhelming - by which the opposition could challenge any public statement of fact by an elected official? Critically this challenge would be brought in a court of law, with all of the professional standards and requirements that entails. (As opposed to being litigated by politicians, like an impeachment proceeding.) It wouldn't be a criminal proceeding, and there wouldn't be criminal consequences. Probably the result would simply be made public, and maybe the losing side would need to pay the costs of the winning side. Of course they would also have had the opportunity to retract and correct the untrue statement at the outset.
As things stand, the president and his supporters are able to say whatever BS they want publicly, then they go to court with these lawsuits, and they say different things, because there are actual consequences there. Perhaps if there were consequences for any knowing lie by an elected official, you'd see fewer of them? The idea wouldn't be to use this for everything, just for clear, baseless statements of fact with reprocussions. And it's not like truth is unknowable; we already have this kind of litigation around defamation, and it largely works.
Anyway, not like I see anything like this happening, but if I were designing a system of government it's something I'd want to consider. (I suppose there's also the chance of it backfiring, simply politicizing the judiciary by involving it more in politics. But again, the responses to the election lawsuits give me some hope there.)
So that got me wondering, ironically given your listing of lawyers as one of the named bad-faith groups, could government be made to act more like the legal system, or could the legal system be incorporated more into government. One specific idea I was considering was whether you could have the option of a defamation-style judicial review of statements of fact made by elected officials. Obviously you wouldn't litigate every statement, but what if there were some sort of challenge process - perhaps with a fee to bring a challenge, and/or consequences for spurious challenges, so they wouldn't become overwhelming - by which the opposition could challenge any public statement of fact by an elected official? Critically this challenge would be brought in a court of law, with all of the professional standards and requirements that entails. (As opposed to being litigated by politicians, like an impeachment proceeding.) It wouldn't be a criminal proceeding, and there wouldn't be criminal consequences. Probably the result would simply be made public, and maybe the losing side would need to pay the costs of the winning side. Of course they would also have had the opportunity to retract and correct the untrue statement at the outset.
As things stand, the president and his supporters are able to say whatever BS they want publicly, then they go to court with these lawsuits, and they say different things, because there are actual consequences there. Perhaps if there were consequences for any knowing lie by an elected official, you'd see fewer of them? The idea wouldn't be to use this for everything, just for clear, baseless statements of fact with reprocussions. And it's not like truth is unknowable; we already have this kind of litigation around defamation, and it largely works.
Anyway, not like I see anything like this happening, but if I were designing a system of government it's something I'd want to consider. (I suppose there's also the chance of it backfiring, simply politicizing the judiciary by involving it more in politics. But again, the responses to the election lawsuits give me some hope there.)
It appears to me the one branch of government that has stood up reasonably well recently is the court system.
One of the most serious things the court system does is deprive people of their liberty and life. And it is not stellar. You may argue that the 2% to 10% wrongful conviction rate is good (I think it is unacceptable) but what does seem clear is that many judges are swayed by any old pseudo-scientific rubbish (if they even remain awake during the trial): https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-grisham-wrongful...
I like the idea of people being held accountable for mis-information though.
One of the most serious things the court system does is deprive people of their liberty and life. And it is not stellar. You may argue that the 2% to 10% wrongful conviction rate is good (I think it is unacceptable) but what does seem clear is that many judges are swayed by any old pseudo-scientific rubbish (if they even remain awake during the trial): https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-grisham-wrongful...
I like the idea of people being held accountable for mis-information though.
I definitely wouldn't argue that the court system is perfect, just that it appears to be better at separating fact from fiction than other branches of government (though, again, not perfect).
I'm sure in this very long thread some folks believe that those items you list are symptoms of the problem and that the root causes are much more simple. That huge chunk (I'd estimate it at well into the tens of millions of US adults) feels disenfranchised (right now they literally feel that in way in that they believe their vote doesn't count, but also figuratively) because opportunity has been "taken" from them. Taken is in quotes because though it's partially true it's also a victim mentality.
The rioters/protesters are largely white as opposed to the more-diverse BLM protesters (more on that later). These people feel like the US Government, in general, and that includes moderate republicans, has failed them in the past several decades by sending their jobs overseas, or by allowing immigrants into the country who have taken their jobs. They feel like they're being left behind, which, in truth, they are. Blue collar jobs have been exported, en masse, over the years, and that's been a bi-partisan effort resulting in lifting countless people out of poverty outside the US, but putting incredible pressure on people inside of the US, particularly the middle class, who feel like they have few or no prospects.
And of course the irony here, when compared to the BLM protests, is that if a sizable segment of these rioters/protesters weren't racist they would understand that this is how Black American have felt _for a couple of hundred years_. Important note: this is not to say that these rioters/protesters are even close to being as poorly treated as the black community. Outsourcing their jobs and giving their former wages to owners/capital in the form of profits is SO FAR from the historical treatment of black Americans that someone will read this and consider it laughable to even compare the two. But they are getting a taste of what it's like when the government stops working for them, the formerly very privileged (not relative to the 1% but certainly to black americans) white middle class.
All of the polarization stems from that. "You've taken my opportunity and everyone else seems to be getting theirs and I no longer have mine. Fuck you. I'm going to break shit until you listen up."
The rioters/protesters are largely white as opposed to the more-diverse BLM protesters (more on that later). These people feel like the US Government, in general, and that includes moderate republicans, has failed them in the past several decades by sending their jobs overseas, or by allowing immigrants into the country who have taken their jobs. They feel like they're being left behind, which, in truth, they are. Blue collar jobs have been exported, en masse, over the years, and that's been a bi-partisan effort resulting in lifting countless people out of poverty outside the US, but putting incredible pressure on people inside of the US, particularly the middle class, who feel like they have few or no prospects.
And of course the irony here, when compared to the BLM protests, is that if a sizable segment of these rioters/protesters weren't racist they would understand that this is how Black American have felt _for a couple of hundred years_. Important note: this is not to say that these rioters/protesters are even close to being as poorly treated as the black community. Outsourcing their jobs and giving their former wages to owners/capital in the form of profits is SO FAR from the historical treatment of black Americans that someone will read this and consider it laughable to even compare the two. But they are getting a taste of what it's like when the government stops working for them, the formerly very privileged (not relative to the 1% but certainly to black americans) white middle class.
All of the polarization stems from that. "You've taken my opportunity and everyone else seems to be getting theirs and I no longer have mine. Fuck you. I'm going to break shit until you listen up."
The loss of jobs and transfer of production abroad was driven by the widespread introduction of MBA degrees and consequent recognition of how offshoring could increase profits plus simple capitalistic greed. All politically implemented by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, one of the greediest and most powerful of the capitalistic organizations in the USA.
Now, with Dems in control, USCoC is back in the driver's seat:
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/jan/4/chamber-comm...
Move the boot factory to China and profit!
Now, with Dems in control, USCoC is back in the driver's seat:
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/jan/4/chamber-comm...
Move the boot factory to China and profit!
If you had written your entire comment without the "No" at the beginning I would be nodding my head in agreement with you. Instead I'll ask: do you think the "MBAs" operated/operate in a vacuum devoid of government oversight/regulation or do you think they were/are aided and abetted by said overseers/regulators?
Maybe they were storming the capitol because they thought the ghost of Jack Welch was in there.
Maybe they were storming the capitol because they thought the ghost of Jack Welch was in there.
They stormed the capitol because they believe the election was stolen without any evidence or facts with any basis in reality.
Great analysis, although I think it's important to understand all the outsourcing of blue collar jobs and manufacturing was mostly driven by consumer demand for low prices. It's still true today. Most people can pay 2x as much for something made in the USA, but choose not to.
Good point, but I'd adjust your "mostly" to "also" because the profit motivation, I suspect, came first. And at some number the 2x is probably not true (like paying $600 vs $1200 for a fridge is a pretty huge ask for a lot of folks).
That said, I would agree most people could afford it today if we'd kept some of that exported wealth stateside, or if we'd spread the wealth that did remain stateside out more evenly over the past 40 years instead of our policies benefiting those with capital so disproportionately.
That said, I would agree most people could afford it today if we'd kept some of that exported wealth stateside, or if we'd spread the wealth that did remain stateside out more evenly over the past 40 years instead of our policies benefiting those with capital so disproportionately.
[deleted]
> The rioters/protesters are largely white as opposed to the more-diverse BLM protesters (more on that later)
> And of course the irony here, when compared to the BLM protests, is that if a sizable segment of these rioters/protesters weren't racist they would understand that this is how Black American have felt _for a couple of hundred years_.
Why is what people look like so important to you? It sounds as if you are saying that if a group of thousands of black Trump supporters did exactly the same thing, it would be ok. And that the BLM rioters over the summer were somehow more acceptable because they were more diverse.
How is that not pre-judging people by how they look? Whenever I ask people this, they essentially tell me that while they can't know exactly what an individual is like by their skin color, they can use skin color as a proxy for other characteristics, and make inferences about how that person has been treated in life by how they look. So in a roundabout way, yes, they are making unjustified pre-judgements based on people's skin color.
Is this really ok?
You can see interviews with David Duke where he clarifies that he doesn't hate every black person, he just assumes that black people in general are not compatible with our society, but that there are individual exceptions to this. Klansmen will tell you in interviews that they don't hate black people purely because of how they look, but how they act, and that they are using their skin color to infer how they will act.
Height is a visible characteristic that is strongly correlated with success in life, do you use that to judge people as well?
The truth is that purely through numerical probability you can make pre-judgements about people based on their appearance. I for one however go out of my way not to. That doesn't mean that I am blinding myself to people's physical characteristics or trying to erase them of course. It merely means that I won't condemn or excuse people's actions because of how they look.
> And of course the irony here, when compared to the BLM protests, is that if a sizable segment of these rioters/protesters weren't racist they would understand that this is how Black American have felt _for a couple of hundred years_.
Why is what people look like so important to you? It sounds as if you are saying that if a group of thousands of black Trump supporters did exactly the same thing, it would be ok. And that the BLM rioters over the summer were somehow more acceptable because they were more diverse.
How is that not pre-judging people by how they look? Whenever I ask people this, they essentially tell me that while they can't know exactly what an individual is like by their skin color, they can use skin color as a proxy for other characteristics, and make inferences about how that person has been treated in life by how they look. So in a roundabout way, yes, they are making unjustified pre-judgements based on people's skin color.
Is this really ok?
You can see interviews with David Duke where he clarifies that he doesn't hate every black person, he just assumes that black people in general are not compatible with our society, but that there are individual exceptions to this. Klansmen will tell you in interviews that they don't hate black people purely because of how they look, but how they act, and that they are using their skin color to infer how they will act.
Height is a visible characteristic that is strongly correlated with success in life, do you use that to judge people as well?
The truth is that purely through numerical probability you can make pre-judgements about people based on their appearance. I for one however go out of my way not to. That doesn't mean that I am blinding myself to people's physical characteristics or trying to erase them of course. It merely means that I won't condemn or excuse people's actions because of how they look.
Lincoln lived most of his life as a Whig but aligned with the new Republican Party in the 1850s during a transitional era in American politics. Northern opinion was turning against slavery, and enslaved people’s efforts to resist and escape bondage kept the issue center stage.
Rather than accede to the changing political landscape, Southern Democrats maligned the new Republican Party as an existential threat because it opposed the expansion of slavery in the Western territories. Promoters of secession, called “fire-eaters,” knew they did not command majority support even within the South, so they deployed a rhetoric of fear and anger that condemned Republicans as “fanatics” and encouraged fellow Southerners to regard Lincoln’s election as “an open declaration of war” upon the region.
This hyperbolic language left no room for compromise or middle ground; it was intended to terrify voters into opposing Lincoln. The result was that Lincoln was not listed as a candidate in many Southern precincts, and his election, thus, surprised even moderate Southerners who believed he could not command an electoral college majority. By perverting the electoral process, fire-eaters swayed moderates to adopt their conspiratorial approach to politics.
Lincoln believed in the protection of minority rights, but he also believed in majority rule. Secession was, in his words, an appeal from the “ballot to the bullet.” That is, because Southern Democrats could not persuade a majority of voters to their standard (as they had for decades), they abandoned the political process altogether. This action, Lincoln felt, made self-government impossible. If the losing side in an election could always walk away, how could a nation ever remain intact?
Rather than accede to the changing political landscape, Southern Democrats maligned the new Republican Party as an existential threat because it opposed the expansion of slavery in the Western territories. Promoters of secession, called “fire-eaters,” knew they did not command majority support even within the South, so they deployed a rhetoric of fear and anger that condemned Republicans as “fanatics” and encouraged fellow Southerners to regard Lincoln’s election as “an open declaration of war” upon the region.
This hyperbolic language left no room for compromise or middle ground; it was intended to terrify voters into opposing Lincoln. The result was that Lincoln was not listed as a candidate in many Southern precincts, and his election, thus, surprised even moderate Southerners who believed he could not command an electoral college majority. By perverting the electoral process, fire-eaters swayed moderates to adopt their conspiratorial approach to politics.
Lincoln believed in the protection of minority rights, but he also believed in majority rule. Secession was, in his words, an appeal from the “ballot to the bullet.” That is, because Southern Democrats could not persuade a majority of voters to their standard (as they had for decades), they abandoned the political process altogether. This action, Lincoln felt, made self-government impossible. If the losing side in an election could always walk away, how could a nation ever remain intact?
Not an American, living in EU.
It somehow reminds me of Weimar Germany, with two very fringe (sometimes militant) opposing groups radicalising the rest of the society -- or the rest just ignoring the whole mess and going about their lives.
It somehow reminds me of Weimar Germany, with two very fringe (sometimes militant) opposing groups radicalising the rest of the society -- or the rest just ignoring the whole mess and going about their lives.
According to the history of Weimar Germany, this seems nothing like that, though. They enforced their views with guns. We reinforce our views with protests. Yes, there are some crazy folks with guns, but that's different than the politicians themselves having a personal military that they use to purge opponents.
However, I'd love a deep historical perspective – it would be fascinating if there were parallels to be drawn. But, are there any?
However, I'd love a deep historical perspective – it would be fascinating if there were parallels to be drawn. But, are there any?
The historical comparison is not that great. About half of the American population is not unemployed and at the risk of starving. Most of the production of food and resources is not being sent to nearby countries in the form of payments for a lost war. There is no hyperinflation that is causing a massive drop in living standards.
In the Weimar Republic, KPD and NSDAP parties representation in the Bundestag, as distinct parties with relatively large representations.
In 1932, the KPD had 360k members, 5m+ votes, and 14-17% of the electorate. From 1928, the KPD was basically the Stalin party. They believed that the SPD (most analogous to modern-day "Democrats" in USA) were fascist, let alone the NSDAP.
There is no modern equivalent to the KPD in contemporary American politics. The most left-leaning elected officials in the Bundestag-equivalent would have been SPD members. The fringe militant people on the left in the USA do not have any political representation at the federal level, mostly because they do not exist in meaningful numbers, certainly not anywhere approaching 10-17%.
I think that 10-17% might exist on the right (it is probably closer to 5%), but especially after this year, it will become clear that the Republican Party (more analogous to the CDU, historically) is not their party.
If history is cyclical, Trump will form his equivalent of the DNVP shortly, which will not be radical enough for the people storming the Capitol today. This election and transfer of power might be the American Dolchstoß moment, in retrospect. I really hope we've learned.
In 1932, the KPD had 360k members, 5m+ votes, and 14-17% of the electorate. From 1928, the KPD was basically the Stalin party. They believed that the SPD (most analogous to modern-day "Democrats" in USA) were fascist, let alone the NSDAP.
There is no modern equivalent to the KPD in contemporary American politics. The most left-leaning elected officials in the Bundestag-equivalent would have been SPD members. The fringe militant people on the left in the USA do not have any political representation at the federal level, mostly because they do not exist in meaningful numbers, certainly not anywhere approaching 10-17%.
I think that 10-17% might exist on the right (it is probably closer to 5%), but especially after this year, it will become clear that the Republican Party (more analogous to the CDU, historically) is not their party.
If history is cyclical, Trump will form his equivalent of the DNVP shortly, which will not be radical enough for the people storming the Capitol today. This election and transfer of power might be the American Dolchstoß moment, in retrospect. I really hope we've learned.
Who are the two fringe groups? By citing Weimar Germany, and then going into "two fringe groups", you are putting Anti-Nazi organizations on the same moral level as Nazis. You do see the problem with that right?
The left he/she is referring were not anti-nazi, they were pro-communist, and almost uniformly pro-soviet groups that argued that the ruling social democratic government had betrayed the working class.
The Nazis weren't the nice guys, but neither were their opposition, at least not the one referred to by the parent.
The Nazis weren't the nice guys, but neither were their opposition, at least not the one referred to by the parent.
Yup. Remember during the rise of Hitler, he was able to consolidate power because the CENTRIST government at the time agreed to work with Hitler to achieve short-term political objectives.
Well, now... To be fair the Weimar Republic was a political turmoil. It is not like the Nazis had "gas the Jews" in their party programme. They established themselves over 10 years, and due to the instability f any political coalition in the government they were able to maneuver themselves into a position where they could force events forward.
People seem to think the Nazi party showed up on the stairs of the parliament demanding genocide and war. In reality it was a 14 year progression of bad options, political turmoil and very hard choices to defend extremely weak coalitions. Were those choices good? Obviously not. Can we judge them after the fact? I would say no.
People seem to think the Nazi party showed up on the stairs of the parliament demanding genocide and war. In reality it was a 14 year progression of bad options, political turmoil and very hard choices to defend extremely weak coalitions. Were those choices good? Obviously not. Can we judge them after the fact? I would say no.
Maybe it wasn't in the party program, but everyone knew what SA violence meant and Hitler had been pretty explicit about his views of the racial supremacy of the Germans and what he thought should be done to the Jews in particular as far back as Mein Kampf.
Maybe if the NSDAP had campaigned with "we want to gas all the Jews" they wouldn't have won so many votes, but nobody can say that NSDAP voters could have been ignorant of the general tendency. In fact, I think this kind of "we couldn't have known what would happen" is IMHO revisionism.
The truth is that, while everything about economic depression, the political instability of the system, the KPD and SPD being unable to cooperate, etc., were important factors, it remains true that a large segment of the German population were totally OK with ideas of German imperialism, revanchism and anti-semitism, otherwise Hitler's rise to power would never had happened.
Maybe if the NSDAP had campaigned with "we want to gas all the Jews" they wouldn't have won so many votes, but nobody can say that NSDAP voters could have been ignorant of the general tendency. In fact, I think this kind of "we couldn't have known what would happen" is IMHO revisionism.
The truth is that, while everything about economic depression, the political instability of the system, the KPD and SPD being unable to cooperate, etc., were important factors, it remains true that a large segment of the German population were totally OK with ideas of German imperialism, revanchism and anti-semitism, otherwise Hitler's rise to power would never had happened.
I completely agree. What I wanted to convey was that I do not think the events leading up to Hitler becoming Kansler can be easily summarised.
The simplified story of the nazi rise to rule removes one of the most important lessons that can be learned from it: the watchfulness required to protect democracy.
We don't need to watch out for the big step because those will be easily.spotted anyway, but for the many, many small ones.
The simplified story of the nazi rise to rule removes one of the most important lessons that can be learned from it: the watchfulness required to protect democracy.
We don't need to watch out for the big step because those will be easily.spotted anyway, but for the many, many small ones.
The two fringe groups were not Nazis and anti-nazis. They were Nazis and communists. The communists had their own agenda, they were not simply anti-nazi.
There was also a large group of more centrist liberals that were more focused on stuff like trade unions and public sector unions. Hitler realized he could work with this group as long as he agreed to meet their short-term political goals.
And to your point, the KPD, along with their militant wing Antifaschistische Aktion, attacked the SPD far more aggressively than they attacked the Nazis.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
When both extremes are saying that the other side should face death or life imprisonment as well as anyone that defends that extremist, what those groups actually stand for becomes irrelevant.
> How did we arrive to this point where a huge chunk of the population is in one reality and another huge chunk of the population is in another reality
This isn't an accurate representation of the US. There are 4 sides:
- extreme left
- left
- right
- extreme right
The proportion of each is probably around: 5%/45%/45%/5% (maybe 10/40/40/10)
The 5% on each extreme are the one making the news on the other side to instill fear from the "other side" (fox news depiction of far left Portland, cnn depiction of far right, etc)
And logically, the people who consume news the most have the most distorted view of the other side: https://twitter.com/HiddenTribesUS/status/114314670369397555...
Since media get money from more viewers, and since fear sells, unfortunately they have no incentive to make this better. Finding neutral sources while staying informed is a hard problem.
This isn't an accurate representation of the US. There are 4 sides:
- extreme left
- left
- right
- extreme right
The proportion of each is probably around: 5%/45%/45%/5% (maybe 10/40/40/10)
The 5% on each extreme are the one making the news on the other side to instill fear from the "other side" (fox news depiction of far left Portland, cnn depiction of far right, etc)
And logically, the people who consume news the most have the most distorted view of the other side: https://twitter.com/HiddenTribesUS/status/114314670369397555...
Since media get money from more viewers, and since fear sells, unfortunately they have no incentive to make this better. Finding neutral sources while staying informed is a hard problem.
Politics being a single bar is one of the problems. People have values that do not fit in any one place on the bar.
Yup. Taking a complex, multidimensional space of ideas and beliefs (and by multidimensional I mean something like 100+ dimensions, not 3 or 4) and projecting it into a number line is one of the things that bewilder me about the world the most. Doubly so in countries that don't have a two-party system like the US.
And if anything, I think that this classical projected political spectrum isn't a line, it's really a circle. Extreme left and extreme right are the same thing; the particulars of the beliefs don't matter (if you think they do, you can always imagine this being a flat strip of paper glued into a Möbius strip).
And if anything, I think that this classical projected political spectrum isn't a line, it's really a circle. Extreme left and extreme right are the same thing; the particulars of the beliefs don't matter (if you think they do, you can always imagine this being a flat strip of paper glued into a Möbius strip).
> And if anything, I think that this classical projected political spectrum isn't a line, it's really a circle. Extreme left and extreme right are the same thing; the particulars of the beliefs don't matter (if you think they do, you can always imagine this being a flat strip of paper glued into a Möbius strip).
It's not just you - this is named "Horseshoe Theory".
It's not just you - this is named "Horseshoe Theory".
I suggest you check out the political compass. It’s a reliable indicator of political pref over time. We used it a lot in my public policy grad program
The idea of left and right comes from having a 2 party system. Politics is not a line. There are n dimensions, where n is the number of issues you care about that have a non-muddled for-against aspect (if the issue is too muddled, it is probably 2 separate issues in this model)
I don’t agree with your assessment. The difference between the 5% and 45% isn’t about belief, but opportunity. Look at this poll: https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/20...
> Supporters of President Trump have stormed the US Capitol to protest lawmakers certifying Joe Biden’s election victory. Based on what you have read or heard about this, do you support or oppose these actions?
45% of Republicans said yes! Now I am not asserting that half of republicans are about to engage in sedition. But is it because they have different beliefs? No, instead I think it’s just that the 5% you describe has nothing to lose.
> Supporters of President Trump have stormed the US Capitol to protest lawmakers certifying Joe Biden’s election victory. Based on what you have read or heard about this, do you support or oppose these actions?
45% of Republicans said yes! Now I am not asserting that half of republicans are about to engage in sedition. But is it because they have different beliefs? No, instead I think it’s just that the 5% you describe has nothing to lose.
If it were limited to "protest" I would support their actions too, no matter how much I disagree with their motives. Everyone has a right to expression. Where the actions are clearly unsupportable is that "stormed" was rather more literal than I suspect some of those 45% realized.
Also, is it possible there's a sampling bias in poll respondents? I almost never respond to polls myself because they often seem to be designed to be polarizing.
Also, is it possible there's a sampling bias in poll respondents? I almost never respond to polls myself because they often seem to be designed to be polarizing.
I disagree, left-right isn't sufficient enough to capture the peculiarities of current US politics.
it's more along these three camps:
- Progressives / Left Populists (such as Bernie, AOC, etc...) - they aren't really "extreme left"; they are more moderate lib-left if you ask any Europeans. They don't really want to demolish capitalism as some actual Marxists suggest, they just want to fix/modulate capitalism to be reasonable to the ordinary people, at the expense of large corporations and free market policies. Although some of them are in the Democratic Party, they are still failing to exert any power in there, which is mostly comprised of neoliberals. However, they are gaining an noticeable amount of partisan support these days, up to the point that the neoliberals had to actually strategize a bit to make sure Bernie doesn't win in the DNC primaries.
- Neoliberals / Globalists (Obama, Biden, etc...) - this is where the majority of politicians are at, comprising the majority of the Democratic Party, as well as about half of the Republican Party (or even more). Although it seems on the surface that the Dems and Reps are fighting the shit out of each other, many of them are still bind by the common interest of supporting various austerity policies, free reign of large corporations and making sure the global free market economy continue without any problems. Note that the left tends to use the term "neoliberal" more, while the right tends to use the term "globalists" more. From the left and right populist's view they are the source of all evil, and from a neoliberal's view the populist left/right are respectively "communists" and "fascists".
- Right Populists / Nationalists (Trump, etc...) - Just like the progressives hate that the neoliberals are looting people with austerity measures and skyrocketing housing/healthcare/education costs, the right populists hate that the globalists are looting people by shutting down former industrial businesses, and imposing some weird liberal cultural hegemony upon them. Though I do not completely know the dynamics inside that camp, there seems to be a common agenda of being oppositional to immigration and being pro local business, as well as a deep hatred of liberal media. They have started to take over the GOP party, which is why there are no-Trump Republicans fighting against it.
Trump is kind of an outlier - he was a real-estate neoliberal but was kind of an outcast among them, and he forced his way into politics with many years of reality TV image-shaping. Many on the far-left criticize him being a neoliberal in right populist coating, and some on the far-right are disappointed by Trump about him having achieved nothing (which is a different phenomenon than no-Trump Republicans - I'm talking about actual fascists here!)
There are also some on the left (state communists, anarchists) as well as the far-right (fascists, neoreactionaries) which I've excluded, as they are still a bit fringe.
It also seems that the right often oversimplifies the left as well as the left oversimplifies the right, and that's partially because there are power struggles inside both of the respective camps that makes the whole situation a bit complicated. For example, if you picked a random BLM protester, chances are you'll get a neoliberal (if their protest was co-opted by the establishment Democrats), a progressive (if their protest wasn't co-opted but are still mainly peaceful and still believe in electorialism), or an anarchist (if they do not believe in electorialism and are more interested in looting and smashing the police). A naive right-populist will see protesters destroying police stations and say that the Democrats are letting this happen and the left are all "cultural Marxists", but in reality it's a situation where anarchists are on the rise and the neoliberals are failing to take control over the "peaceful/orderly protest" narrative. Actually, I don't really know if the protestors participating in the violence are simply "anarchists", maybe they are just uninterested in these labels and just want to wreck shit up as they are fed up by many decades of police suppression.
it's more along these three camps:
- Progressives / Left Populists (such as Bernie, AOC, etc...) - they aren't really "extreme left"; they are more moderate lib-left if you ask any Europeans. They don't really want to demolish capitalism as some actual Marxists suggest, they just want to fix/modulate capitalism to be reasonable to the ordinary people, at the expense of large corporations and free market policies. Although some of them are in the Democratic Party, they are still failing to exert any power in there, which is mostly comprised of neoliberals. However, they are gaining an noticeable amount of partisan support these days, up to the point that the neoliberals had to actually strategize a bit to make sure Bernie doesn't win in the DNC primaries.
- Neoliberals / Globalists (Obama, Biden, etc...) - this is where the majority of politicians are at, comprising the majority of the Democratic Party, as well as about half of the Republican Party (or even more). Although it seems on the surface that the Dems and Reps are fighting the shit out of each other, many of them are still bind by the common interest of supporting various austerity policies, free reign of large corporations and making sure the global free market economy continue without any problems. Note that the left tends to use the term "neoliberal" more, while the right tends to use the term "globalists" more. From the left and right populist's view they are the source of all evil, and from a neoliberal's view the populist left/right are respectively "communists" and "fascists".
- Right Populists / Nationalists (Trump, etc...) - Just like the progressives hate that the neoliberals are looting people with austerity measures and skyrocketing housing/healthcare/education costs, the right populists hate that the globalists are looting people by shutting down former industrial businesses, and imposing some weird liberal cultural hegemony upon them. Though I do not completely know the dynamics inside that camp, there seems to be a common agenda of being oppositional to immigration and being pro local business, as well as a deep hatred of liberal media. They have started to take over the GOP party, which is why there are no-Trump Republicans fighting against it.
Trump is kind of an outlier - he was a real-estate neoliberal but was kind of an outcast among them, and he forced his way into politics with many years of reality TV image-shaping. Many on the far-left criticize him being a neoliberal in right populist coating, and some on the far-right are disappointed by Trump about him having achieved nothing (which is a different phenomenon than no-Trump Republicans - I'm talking about actual fascists here!)
There are also some on the left (state communists, anarchists) as well as the far-right (fascists, neoreactionaries) which I've excluded, as they are still a bit fringe.
It also seems that the right often oversimplifies the left as well as the left oversimplifies the right, and that's partially because there are power struggles inside both of the respective camps that makes the whole situation a bit complicated. For example, if you picked a random BLM protester, chances are you'll get a neoliberal (if their protest was co-opted by the establishment Democrats), a progressive (if their protest wasn't co-opted but are still mainly peaceful and still believe in electorialism), or an anarchist (if they do not believe in electorialism and are more interested in looting and smashing the police). A naive right-populist will see protesters destroying police stations and say that the Democrats are letting this happen and the left are all "cultural Marxists", but in reality it's a situation where anarchists are on the rise and the neoliberals are failing to take control over the "peaceful/orderly protest" narrative. Actually, I don't really know if the protestors participating in the violence are simply "anarchists", maybe they are just uninterested in these labels and just want to wreck shit up as they are fed up by many decades of police suppression.
Now you see what Trump is talking about when he says fake news. The irony is that fake news is basically both sides of the spectrum. I'm personally on the right-wing side of politics and it just cringes me at how many people on the right-wing buy into baseless conspiracy theories. I always tell people that fighting over a mask is not exactly the hill you want to die on. However, I've also noticed that the left-wing is getting their own share of conspiracy theories as well now too.
> How did we arrive to this point where a huge chunk of the population is in one reality and another huge chunk of the population is in another reality?
My own impression is that this is far worse in the US than in most other first world countries. If I'm right about that, then explanations based on social media algorithms etc don't really work, because the same algorithms apply in other countries too. It really then needs a US-specific explanation.
Maybe, the US has just got too big and too diverse – I am talking here about political/ideological/worldview diversity, not ethnic/racial/etc diversity – to hold itself together in the long-run. Countries don't last forever, and the US isn't going to last forever either. Of course, it isn't breaking up this year, and I think other countries are likely to break up before the US does (such as the UK, Spain, Belgium, Canada). But maybe these current events are bringing that eventuality closer to us.
My own impression is that this is far worse in the US than in most other first world countries. If I'm right about that, then explanations based on social media algorithms etc don't really work, because the same algorithms apply in other countries too. It really then needs a US-specific explanation.
Maybe, the US has just got too big and too diverse – I am talking here about political/ideological/worldview diversity, not ethnic/racial/etc diversity – to hold itself together in the long-run. Countries don't last forever, and the US isn't going to last forever either. Of course, it isn't breaking up this year, and I think other countries are likely to break up before the US does (such as the UK, Spain, Belgium, Canada). But maybe these current events are bringing that eventuality closer to us.
I agree that it is far worse in the US than in other Western Democracies. I think it has to do with the fundamental US culture of distrust in government and extreme focus on “individualism”. Which by many people gets translated into “I don’t care about the rest as long as I get what I want”. It is an attitude that long term undermines and destroy society. The US is moving towards a modern version of feudalism. It will get much worse. You haven’t seen anything yet.
The US has a uniquely strong distrust in government compared to other nations to which you are referring. I think as a result, the social media algorithms are particularly potent in the US.
[deleted]
Anyone who is a student of history should have a uniquely strong distrust of the government. I find that it’s the folks with the weakest familiarity of the history of governments abusing its citizens that have the greatest faith in more and bigger government, especially distant government (i.e. federal government)
Not to say that you’re wrong but the algorithm takes into account location. A user in the US is going to see a different feed than a user in France. I think it is largely the algorithm and the narratives being pushed by news sources creating the divide. There is a history of trust in newscasters that is being taken advantage of to spread propaganda and it works.
The US might be too big. I want to agree, but I know I’m biased by the media. I want to disagree, but I haven’t traveled to enough of the country to say it confidently.
The US might be too big. I want to agree, but I know I’m biased by the media. I want to disagree, but I haven’t traveled to enough of the country to say it confidently.
Our single winner first past the post electoral system and the associated two-party dysfunction are more to blame, as they incentive radical schism.
Or maybe the algorithms that promote this kind of bubble creation have been perfected on English content and are less efficient in other languages.
I doubt that because arguably these problems are significantly worse in the US than in other first world English speaking countries (Anglophone Canada, UK, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand)
I think that one facet is implied by Dang's post above ... if we're not careful to have a respectful debate, then we'll end up having a shouting match instead.
I used to appreciate grid-lock in DC under the idea that the less they got done, the less they'd do to me. Now I recognize that the best outcomes are a) when the lawmakers reach across the aisle and forge what both sides would consider a compromise and more importantly b) when the lawmakers we elect actually enact laws and run the country in a way that benefits the people they represent.
I suspect that our best way forward as a nation is to resume carefully growing the middle class. This will by nature mean that the financial elites (some of whom are clearly moral despots) will lose a small portion of their wealth. But it's amazingly analogous to the reforms at the beginning of the last century that started to protect labor from the robber barons.
I think the second step is to (yes, at a cost) restore at least some manufacturing capability to the US. This provides jobs to many who are NOT going to be talking tech on HN and also protects us (and the world) against there being potentially a single-source supplier of any given resource.
I used to appreciate grid-lock in DC under the idea that the less they got done, the less they'd do to me. Now I recognize that the best outcomes are a) when the lawmakers reach across the aisle and forge what both sides would consider a compromise and more importantly b) when the lawmakers we elect actually enact laws and run the country in a way that benefits the people they represent.
I suspect that our best way forward as a nation is to resume carefully growing the middle class. This will by nature mean that the financial elites (some of whom are clearly moral despots) will lose a small portion of their wealth. But it's amazingly analogous to the reforms at the beginning of the last century that started to protect labor from the robber barons.
I think the second step is to (yes, at a cost) restore at least some manufacturing capability to the US. This provides jobs to many who are NOT going to be talking tech on HN and also protects us (and the world) against there being potentially a single-source supplier of any given resource.
if we're not careful to have a respectful debate
This is misguided. Respectful debate in general is good, but only when both sides act in good faith. When some act in bad faith, telling outright lies while maintaining a veneer of civility, then you don't have obvious conflict but arguably something worse: corruption. There is some research showing that angry exchanges are in fact helpful in maintaining the integrity of an online community when others are trying to subvert it: https://snap.stanford.edu/conflict/
This is misguided. Respectful debate in general is good, but only when both sides act in good faith. When some act in bad faith, telling outright lies while maintaining a veneer of civility, then you don't have obvious conflict but arguably something worse: corruption. There is some research showing that angry exchanges are in fact helpful in maintaining the integrity of an online community when others are trying to subvert it: https://snap.stanford.edu/conflict/
What does anything you've said have to do with why the Capitol was rushed and occupied by conservatives?
It was my analysis of "How did we get here" posted by the parent ... I thought it was still relevant to the OP but perhaps not something that anyone is interested in discussing.
I know it’s cliche to blame the internet, but ... the internet is a big factor. Previously, there were only a handful of big media outlets that everyone read/watched, they kept decently to journalistic integrity principles, and made some effort to be balanced and not overly biased. No OANN or Newsmax there. But the internet allowed anyone to be a “journalist”, and as fringe media started to gain in popularity, mainstream media started getting more polarized too, to keep market share.
Going back further, before the existence of mass media, everything was more in-person/local. When you have a small community of people you talk to in-person, you’re going to be way more reasonable than on some global, anonymous, online community. Social media is a great example - it’s a breeding ground for arguments, conspiracy theories and extremism. People who would be perfectly civil to each other in person can be absolute assholes to each other online. How many email/Slack disagreements have you been in at work that instantly resolve the moment you move to in-person or video chat?
Some will say this polarization always existed, but I do feel it has gotten significantly worse. I don’t remember the 90s feeling this polarized, with people so unable to agree upon basic facts about current events. And I’m guessing the 90s were more polarized than the 50s.
One good thing - hostilities BETWEEN nations seem to be decreasing. I don’t think we’re on the cusp of World War 3 or any such thing, but hostilities WITHIN nations seem to be on the rise, at least from my “gut feel” view of my life so far.
On that note, life has been good for a long time in the west. War is an absolute atrocity, but it does put petty disputes into perspective, and build some sense of national unity. Since World War 2, life has been pretty cushy and safe in western democracies, so maybe we’re starting to make enemies of each other to fill the void?
Going back further, before the existence of mass media, everything was more in-person/local. When you have a small community of people you talk to in-person, you’re going to be way more reasonable than on some global, anonymous, online community. Social media is a great example - it’s a breeding ground for arguments, conspiracy theories and extremism. People who would be perfectly civil to each other in person can be absolute assholes to each other online. How many email/Slack disagreements have you been in at work that instantly resolve the moment you move to in-person or video chat?
Some will say this polarization always existed, but I do feel it has gotten significantly worse. I don’t remember the 90s feeling this polarized, with people so unable to agree upon basic facts about current events. And I’m guessing the 90s were more polarized than the 50s.
One good thing - hostilities BETWEEN nations seem to be decreasing. I don’t think we’re on the cusp of World War 3 or any such thing, but hostilities WITHIN nations seem to be on the rise, at least from my “gut feel” view of my life so far.
On that note, life has been good for a long time in the west. War is an absolute atrocity, but it does put petty disputes into perspective, and build some sense of national unity. Since World War 2, life has been pretty cushy and safe in western democracies, so maybe we’re starting to make enemies of each other to fill the void?
Nobody trusts the media. So people will believe what they want. There’s no source of truth
I started watching news from overseas as they seem to be more objective and professional.
Both sides have "news" outlets which are agenda based and profit motivated. And truth doesn't usually sell as well. That's a problem. You can't even trust the fact checker sources as they say "out of context" or "partially true" when it's a fact against their agenda/team. Even the fact checking sites are super biased.
If you align with a side, you attach your identity to it like Paul Graham wrote about with Keep Your Identity Small [1]. People don't like their identity criticized, or want to believe they may be wrong, so they believe what they want and create their own distorted bubble.
My buddy always said "we're told to not talk about religion or politics. Probably the 2 most powerful and influential topics that exist". Now people have started talking about them, but not in a productive fashion.
If you believe someone on the other side is bad based on their views, you can't have a dialogue. This is the greatest tragedy. Disowning family members and friends over their views because you concluded they must be bad people?
Very few people on either side are actually bad. They just have a different experience, they've aligned their identity and team, and there's a ton of forces at play (ex: media, special interests, etc) to keep that divisiveness going.
[1] http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html
Both sides have "news" outlets which are agenda based and profit motivated. And truth doesn't usually sell as well. That's a problem. You can't even trust the fact checker sources as they say "out of context" or "partially true" when it's a fact against their agenda/team. Even the fact checking sites are super biased.
If you align with a side, you attach your identity to it like Paul Graham wrote about with Keep Your Identity Small [1]. People don't like their identity criticized, or want to believe they may be wrong, so they believe what they want and create their own distorted bubble.
My buddy always said "we're told to not talk about religion or politics. Probably the 2 most powerful and influential topics that exist". Now people have started talking about them, but not in a productive fashion.
If you believe someone on the other side is bad based on their views, you can't have a dialogue. This is the greatest tragedy. Disowning family members and friends over their views because you concluded they must be bad people?
Very few people on either side are actually bad. They just have a different experience, they've aligned their identity and team, and there's a ton of forces at play (ex: media, special interests, etc) to keep that divisiveness going.
[1] http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html
A lot of international news just repeats the american MSM with regard to domestic news.
>Both sides have "news" outlets which are agenda based and profit motivated. And truth doesn't usually sell as well.
The problem with the both sides argument is that one side is disproportionately loose with the truth and constantly resorting to not just half-truths, but complete fabrications.
Without good faith there will be no useful dialogue.
The problem with the both sides argument is that one side is disproportionately loose with the truth and constantly resorting to not just half-truths, but complete fabrications.
Without good faith there will be no useful dialogue.
The left side is loose with the truth too. They suppress newsworthy stories or do no reporting on things that are against their agenda. Selective reporting is loose with the truth as well.
So maybe one side fabricates more and one side withholds more. Two ways to be scandalous. They are both profit driven and aren't truthful any way you slice it. They are not trustworthy with news and cannot be relied upon to be objective. Even the shows positioned as news are super biased and full of opinions.
I understand they are entitled to have opinionated segments with personalities. That's fine.
But we have regulations around what is Champagne or Bourbon. And you need a license to cut hair. Maybe anything dubbed "news" should have a standard?
So maybe one side fabricates more and one side withholds more. Two ways to be scandalous. They are both profit driven and aren't truthful any way you slice it. They are not trustworthy with news and cannot be relied upon to be objective. Even the shows positioned as news are super biased and full of opinions.
I understand they are entitled to have opinionated segments with personalities. That's fine.
But we have regulations around what is Champagne or Bourbon. And you need a license to cut hair. Maybe anything dubbed "news" should have a standard?
This is the answer, I don't have the source in front of me but I remember reading some surveys about American trust in institutions circa 2015 and people who identified as Republican trusted "Media" at a rate of 8%. I can't imagine that number particularly improved since then.
I'm guessing they don't count Fox News, OAN, Breitbart, etc... as part of "the Media" in that?
To be fair, they probably shouldn't be counted in that regard, but it is how they have branded themselves.
To be fair, they probably shouldn't be counted in that regard, but it is how they have branded themselves.
Everybody there has been fed bullshit by the media - talk radio, Fox News commentators, etc - for decades. They eat it up.
Big chunks of the media decided a long time ago that they could make money by just pandering to angry people, and here we are.
Big chunks of the media decided a long time ago that they could make money by just pandering to angry people, and here we are.
> Big chunks of the media decided a long time ago that they could make money by just pandering to angry people
And then social media decided to cut out the cost of producing content, and just put angry people in a cage together.
And then social media decided to cut out the cost of producing content, and just put angry people in a cage together.
In the news it turns out that lies are more profitable than the truth, and the market has spoken.
[deleted]
One of the problems, yes. I've witness too many times where they blatantly lied.
To add to this, lies with easily proven evidence if they wanted to investigate. Eg. Check report on something from a hearing or court document, checked the hearing or the court document itself and it's completely opposite to what the media is reporting.
Not everyone knows how to check public records. I just signed up for PACER this year, and I'm still trying to work out how to access State and local court system's records since they're so distributed.
Like it or not, we haven't exactly done a great job at exposing primary sources to everyone. Until that can happen, media outlets who pay for boots on the ground will still have a degree of intutively granted credibility. Once everyone knows how to access it at will (and can be bothered to) we may see some better measurement on the reliabilitt of information sources.
Like it or not, we haven't exactly done a great job at exposing primary sources to everyone. Until that can happen, media outlets who pay for boots on the ground will still have a degree of intutively granted credibility. Once everyone knows how to access it at will (and can be bothered to) we may see some better measurement on the reliabilitt of information sources.
Sadly I tend to believe that a very small minority of people will ever bother to access the documents, the rest will just believe whatever the media will tell them.
I just got to the point this year where I finally got fed up with the level of editorial discretion taken with so many hot news takes. Makes me a real stick in the mud because I'm just not comfortable not seeing the primary doc anymore. I want to know what actually happened, not what someone thinks I should know about what happened.
Agreed. Anyone who studied any subject deeply should recognize the concept of Gell-Mann Amnesia; I think anyone who tried to verify anything outside of their domain will quickly confirm that this phenomenon is, in fact, very true.
No. People chose their own truth because they didn't like what the media was saying even though it is much closer to reality than whatever crap they were fed through "alternative" media.
I'll posit an additional factor: people who are disenfranchised and desperate are more likely to believe conspiracy theories and act on them. Andrew Yang talked about this a lot during + after his campaign, and also this paper:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3791630 (sorry to those who don't have jstor... I'll try to find stuff)
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3791630 (sorry to those who don't have jstor... I'll try to find stuff)
Yeah, that’s a myth. Trump voters are more affluent than Democrats.
See all those confederate flags today? The gallows? The Auschwitz shirts? When they tell you they are motivated by racism, believe them!
See all those confederate flags today? The gallows? The Auschwitz shirts? When they tell you they are motivated by racism, believe them!
That still is compatible with what I said. There is never just one reason to any major social thing.
I don't think that's true. Trump's base is rural and suburban, white, non-college educated [1]. While income isn't listed here, that does not align with typical wealth distributions.
[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2018/08/09/an-examinati...
[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2018/08/09/an-examinati...
All goes back to Reagan's repeal of the Fairness Doctrine which gave rise to biased political based news coverage a la Fox News. Since then, political polarization has increased each year until we got to the point we're at where both sides see the other as dangerous and lacking legitimacy. It's a lose-lose downward spiral.
The Fairness Doctrine only applied to broadcast media. I guess if it still existed it could be amended to include cable but that would be a tough thing to do since cable companies don't lease the public airwaves.
Prior to around ~1990s Fox News (and ABC/CBS) were the mainstream. CNN was a tiny backwater news station that didn't grow to popularity until the 1991 gulf war in which they had by far the best reporting and everyone else was re-broadcasting CNN. CNN is what grew out of the repeal of the fairness doctrine.
Fox News was founded in 1996.
Fox broadcast stations having nightly news, like your local Fox affiliate news at 11 was and remains different.
Fox broadcast stations having nightly news, like your local Fox affiliate news at 11 was and remains different.
> All goes back to Reagan's
Spoken by someone who clearly has not read the Powell Memorandum. Reagan was just following the playbook. It's all right there, out in the open. It goes like clockwork because the real backer for both sides -- mega-corporatism -- wants it. The "culture war" conflicts are considered unimportant, as they have no effect at all on the substance.
Trump is the first on his side to step out of line. It will cost them, but maybe not much. The goal now will be to get people distracted again, so the real work of eliminating people's influence may proceed.
Spoken by someone who clearly has not read the Powell Memorandum. Reagan was just following the playbook. It's all right there, out in the open. It goes like clockwork because the real backer for both sides -- mega-corporatism -- wants it. The "culture war" conflicts are considered unimportant, as they have no effect at all on the substance.
Trump is the first on his side to step out of line. It will cost them, but maybe not much. The goal now will be to get people distracted again, so the real work of eliminating people's influence may proceed.
> All goes back to Reagan's repeal of the Fairness Doctrine
Reagan himself was an FBI informant and was involved with blacklisting so-called Communists way back when he was President of the Screen Actors Guild, during the McCarthy era. So any story that says "It all started on such and such a date" is completely arbitrary.
You can talk about Barry Goldwater. The National Review. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. There was already a strong conservative movement growing that got Reagan elected in the first place. Not to mention the October surprise conspiracy theory of his 1980 election.
The 1960s, the Vietnam War, the civil rights era, these had a huge impact socially, started political realignments, and caused much internal turmoil in the United States.
The Gingrich "Republican Revolution" occurred in 1994. Hillary Clinton claimed there was a vast right-wing conspiracy in 1995. Government shutdowns. Impeachment. Oklahoma City bombing. All of this occurred before Fox News even went on the air.
Will anyone acknowledge that Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols were radicalized before Fox News existed, not to mention before Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube?
Reagan himself was an FBI informant and was involved with blacklisting so-called Communists way back when he was President of the Screen Actors Guild, during the McCarthy era. So any story that says "It all started on such and such a date" is completely arbitrary.
You can talk about Barry Goldwater. The National Review. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. There was already a strong conservative movement growing that got Reagan elected in the first place. Not to mention the October surprise conspiracy theory of his 1980 election.
The 1960s, the Vietnam War, the civil rights era, these had a huge impact socially, started political realignments, and caused much internal turmoil in the United States.
The Gingrich "Republican Revolution" occurred in 1994. Hillary Clinton claimed there was a vast right-wing conspiracy in 1995. Government shutdowns. Impeachment. Oklahoma City bombing. All of this occurred before Fox News even went on the air.
Will anyone acknowledge that Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols were radicalized before Fox News existed, not to mention before Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube?
Isnt Fairness Doctrine in direct opposition against free speech?
Yes, but because the radio used public airways, the courts found that the FCC can regulate them. It’s why you can’t swear on the radio (the FCC says so) despite free speech allowing swearing.
I'd be curious on how this philosophy translates to the internet today. There's lots of public infrastructure that we use, but it's hard to picture surfing the internet or watching Netflix as the same as broadcast television.
So, if the government had nationalized all paper products in the US, and then put strict content standards on newspapers, would the courts (and you) be like, "oh, well, that's not really a violation of the First Amendment, because the public owns the papers"?
I don’t know. I haven’t read the actual rulings from the courts. I’m just saying how things are.
Hardly. The Fairness Doctrine is exactly "the cure for bad speech is more speech".
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Fairness-Doctrine might be useful.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Fairness-Doctrine might be useful.
It starts with the deregulation of cable news in the 1990s, and creation of mainstream media networks like Fox and CNN. The explosive use of the internet and later social media in the mid to late 2000s only amplified an existing problem of polarization.
[deleted]
Maybe it was precipitated by a breakdown in the shared understanding of what constitutes reality somewhere earlier down the line.
Its happening everywhere, in every political arena. I'm hearing very similar things happening in other countries as well. The hilarious part is every political side believing they are the only ones with facts. It sort of reminds me of how civilizations collapse - esp. the 'barbarians' overpowering 'civilized' Europe. All current mainstream political parties have these barbarians within them. They don't all take violent forms, but they infect people with memes and thoughts that go counter to facts and logic. In general though, I think its the slow decline of hard news with a corresponding amplification of emotional porn/entertainment/opinion/drama. The massive amount of noise that is generated makes it hard to find the signal, and social media isn't helping because they make money when "news" is more entertainment/drama than boring facts. In short, we're f?ked, and we're going to say f?ked for a while.
Single member districts coupled with todays media and social media.
This naturally leads to the natural balance being two parties, which has to oppose each other to the extreme in all topics, which then diverges further and further creating the US today.
Different variants of multi member districts or proportional representation allows for the both the progressive left and far right which today feel left out to form their own groups. They can then get into congress and slowly let the steam out while likely enacting some change which all can accept.
This naturally leads to the natural balance being two parties, which has to oppose each other to the extreme in all topics, which then diverges further and further creating the US today.
Different variants of multi member districts or proportional representation allows for the both the progressive left and far right which today feel left out to form their own groups. They can then get into congress and slowly let the steam out while likely enacting some change which all can accept.
Thank you for highlighting the need for electoral reform, and pointing towards the "winner takes all" nature of most US elections as being the poisonous tree from which these fruits keep falling.
A proportional voting system would both allow new parties to emerge and prevent extremist or divisive candidates from leading those parties. That in turn would give people more options and make them more likely to vote (and less likely to excuse bad actors within their own party).
I would be careful about directing the blame at "single member districts", though. In the US, the most popular type of reform seems to be Instant Run-off Voting, which has its flaws, but avoids the potential criticism that multi-member districts face, namely that a voter's elected representative may end up living much further away from them. (Personally I'd rather a representative who is closer to my political viewpoint than to my physical residence, but I think that much of the criticism for multi-member districts are in bad faith anyway, and thus not amenable to reasoned debate).
A proportional voting system would both allow new parties to emerge and prevent extremist or divisive candidates from leading those parties. That in turn would give people more options and make them more likely to vote (and less likely to excuse bad actors within their own party).
I would be careful about directing the blame at "single member districts", though. In the US, the most popular type of reform seems to be Instant Run-off Voting, which has its flaws, but avoids the potential criticism that multi-member districts face, namely that a voter's elected representative may end up living much further away from them. (Personally I'd rather a representative who is closer to my political viewpoint than to my physical residence, but I think that much of the criticism for multi-member districts are in bad faith anyway, and thus not amenable to reasoned debate).
I'd say the problem with Instant Run-off is that it feels good and tangible but doesn't accomplish anything.
A prime example is the Australian parliament, where the lower chamber is essentially IRV while the upper chamber has some variation of multi member districts.
The lower chamber has 4.5% of the seats being outside the two major blocks, the senate has 18.5%. I.e., the people want more choice but the system does not allow for it.
IRV doesn't solve the problem of gerrymandering either.
I'm completely with you on the distance vs. political opinions. There is something extremely powerful in electing one, who has personally convinced you, from your town to go and represent us all, but the world doesn't operate on that scale anymore.
A prime example is the Australian parliament, where the lower chamber is essentially IRV while the upper chamber has some variation of multi member districts.
The lower chamber has 4.5% of the seats being outside the two major blocks, the senate has 18.5%. I.e., the people want more choice but the system does not allow for it.
IRV doesn't solve the problem of gerrymandering either.
I'm completely with you on the distance vs. political opinions. There is something extremely powerful in electing one, who has personally convinced you, from your town to go and represent us all, but the world doesn't operate on that scale anymore.
That's an interesting analysis, thank you, but I'm not sure how much of the problem is due to the deficiency of IRV and how much is due to other idiosyncratic features of the Australian political scene (such as the influence of Murdoch media, or even the policy of mandatory voting).
In any case, fortunately there are better options out there than IRV, even with the requirement that districts don't change size. One popular (and simple) option is Approval Voting, although it is slightly harder to count than plurality (at least by hand, since you need to separate ballots into potentially 2^n piles, for n candidates).
The alternative I'd recommend is Asset Voting, where the ballots, districts, and counting remain the same, but after the count is complete, the losing candidates (from least popular to most) get to reassign their votes to other candidates until one of them has over 50%.
In any case, fortunately there are better options out there than IRV, even with the requirement that districts don't change size. One popular (and simple) option is Approval Voting, although it is slightly harder to count than plurality (at least by hand, since you need to separate ballots into potentially 2^n piles, for n candidates).
The alternative I'd recommend is Asset Voting, where the ballots, districts, and counting remain the same, but after the count is complete, the losing candidates (from least popular to most) get to reassign their votes to other candidates until one of them has over 50%.
Months ago someone posted a research paper on here that came to the conclusion that the only reliable way to avoid two dominant parties is approval voting.
I can't find that paper using this site's search feature, and I'd be very surprised if it didn't have a questionable definition of "reliable" or considered only a limited set of possible reforms.
There may be some clever game-theoretic argument that could be made about spherical voters in a vacuum, but I think that "political science" results are likely to depend too much on data with too small a sample size (for example, the set of countries that use Approval Voting for national elections).
There may be some clever game-theoretic argument that could be made about spherical voters in a vacuum, but I think that "political science" results are likely to depend too much on data with too small a sample size (for example, the set of countries that use Approval Voting for national elections).
Ah, we've reached the self-awareness in the face of doom part of the Michael Crichton novel.
I think it turns out that it is relatively easy to divide any culture into two polarized groups if you have learned how. There is a certain set of intrinsic values which can be grouped together through something of an engineering process to create maximum polarization, and there are fields which have now figured out how to do it.
Really liked Hypernormalization by Adam Curtis on the phenomena: https://youtu.be/fh2cDKyFdyU
It looks even worse and obvious when looking from outside. As a non-American, when reading news from the US, I use a few different sources with different political leanings. To say there are 2 realities in America is putting it lightly. It's like watching two unrelated movies about the same theme/place, but with vastly different histories that resulted in each reality. Almost like having two cultures, two countries. I don't know what point I'm trying to make but it is really unnerving to watch. It seems that the media in America has zero integrity and face zero consequences.
Maybe it is social media's fault. Maybe, just maybe, social media and information overload (which reduces critical thought in that moment) is the problem. Nevermind propaganda & conspiracies - just the bubble effects + overloaded conflicting information causes some kind of mental disorder but on a national scale. Too much nonsense being internalize and associated with, on a weekly basis, at some point America will have to ask itself if it is all worth it (social media, 24/7 news & streaming (and not to mention porn and the warping of minds)).
Maybe it is just a result of your political system, that this was always the outcome, because you only have 2 sides. Our world and human life/culture cannot just be boiled down to 2 options. There are so much complexity, nuance and scope context that gets ignored if you are forced to pick 1 of 2 options.
Maybe it is just a result of your economic system & regulations and related social structure & social programs. Maybe, just maybe your people are so badly squeezed to live decent lives (esp when it comes to wages/labour vs the cost of living and your bizarre take on healthcare). Maybe it is the greed and tax system favouring "the already rich". Maybe it is because your political system has too much money flowing through it (much of your political practices are illegal elsewhere).
How can you convince a group of people that they are wrong or doing the wrong thing? When the battlefield is rooted in idealogical is very difficult to convince people otherwise (see religions). Trying to convince the people that invaded your capitol will be fruitless. Punishing them will be fruitless too. Nothing you do will change their minds, cause their minds have been warped to believe in a different reality to what the rest of the world sees.
All I know is that America has a lot of reflecting to do to find/re-find your national identity and to decide if the dragon you've been chasing is the right thing. I truly hope you can find a way without thousands of people dying in civil wars etc (nevermind covid).
Maybe it is social media's fault. Maybe, just maybe, social media and information overload (which reduces critical thought in that moment) is the problem. Nevermind propaganda & conspiracies - just the bubble effects + overloaded conflicting information causes some kind of mental disorder but on a national scale. Too much nonsense being internalize and associated with, on a weekly basis, at some point America will have to ask itself if it is all worth it (social media, 24/7 news & streaming (and not to mention porn and the warping of minds)).
Maybe it is just a result of your political system, that this was always the outcome, because you only have 2 sides. Our world and human life/culture cannot just be boiled down to 2 options. There are so much complexity, nuance and scope context that gets ignored if you are forced to pick 1 of 2 options.
Maybe it is just a result of your economic system & regulations and related social structure & social programs. Maybe, just maybe your people are so badly squeezed to live decent lives (esp when it comes to wages/labour vs the cost of living and your bizarre take on healthcare). Maybe it is the greed and tax system favouring "the already rich". Maybe it is because your political system has too much money flowing through it (much of your political practices are illegal elsewhere).
How can you convince a group of people that they are wrong or doing the wrong thing? When the battlefield is rooted in idealogical is very difficult to convince people otherwise (see religions). Trying to convince the people that invaded your capitol will be fruitless. Punishing them will be fruitless too. Nothing you do will change their minds, cause their minds have been warped to believe in a different reality to what the rest of the world sees.
All I know is that America has a lot of reflecting to do to find/re-find your national identity and to decide if the dragon you've been chasing is the right thing. I truly hope you can find a way without thousands of people dying in civil wars etc (nevermind covid).
Only one chunk is living in one reality.
The other is “living” in their little Jim Crow fantasyland.
What’s happing today is the result of reality intruding on their fantasy. It’s the same mechanism that causes earthquakes, or psychotic breaks when people can no longer keep up the appearance of being that up-and-coming Hollywood screenwriter.
Even Pence, McConnell, and Mattis are calling this what it is: a fascist insurrection, led by a failed President. So congratulations on the audacity to both-side this.
The other is “living” in their little Jim Crow fantasyland.
What’s happing today is the result of reality intruding on their fantasy. It’s the same mechanism that causes earthquakes, or psychotic breaks when people can no longer keep up the appearance of being that up-and-coming Hollywood screenwriter.
Even Pence, McConnell, and Mattis are calling this what it is: a fascist insurrection, led by a failed President. So congratulations on the audacity to both-side this.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Fairness-Doctrine
Fairness doctrine, U.S. communications policy formulated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that required licensed radio and television broadcasters to present fair and balanced coverage of controversial issues of interest to their communities, including by devoting equal airtime to opposing points of view.
Repealed in the 1996 telecom deregulation bill that cleared the way for the internet also took away the responsibility of the media to provide truth in the news.
Instead of charging for use of spectrum, it was given to TV and radio networks but they were required to provide responsible and truthful news.
Maybe that was a good idea ? Perhaps, the old timers knew a thing or two about how to keep an informed public so that democracy would work.
Go ahead and down vote me like usual. But I am not wrong.
Repealed in the 1996 telecom deregulation bill that cleared the way for the internet also took away the responsibility of the media to provide truth in the news.
Instead of charging for use of spectrum, it was given to TV and radio networks but they were required to provide responsible and truthful news.
Maybe that was a good idea ? Perhaps, the old timers knew a thing or two about how to keep an informed public so that democracy would work.
Go ahead and down vote me like usual. But I am not wrong.
Many of the US's problems have been subdivided along political lines such that no solution can be brought forward as both sides benefit from the lack of a solution.
3-4 decades of utter gridlock has left the country with both a power vacuum and many aggrieved parties looking for a break from the status quo.
3-4 decades of utter gridlock has left the country with both a power vacuum and many aggrieved parties looking for a break from the status quo.
For one, policing them completely differently?
So sad I have to scroll down this far to see this be acknowledged. Not surprising though
We eliminated the fairness doctrine, and Roger Ailes swore there would never be another Watergate because he would create a media organization to prevent it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/06/roger-a...
This wasn't by mistake, or stumbling into it. It was a very purposeful attack on our democracy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/06/roger-a...
This wasn't by mistake, or stumbling into it. It was a very purposeful attack on our democracy.
The creation of the internet is undoubtedly the biggest factor in this. It created a paradox in people's consumption of information. You not only had the ability to choose what to listen to, you could choose what not to listen.
Another ability the internet has allowed is the creation of communities based around the type of information they consumed which always creates echo-chambers like you pointed out.
It's because of this that many have lost sense of the realities of other people and manifests its own distorted reality.
Not to mention, you also have multi-billion dollar companies utilizing algorithms to keep you there as long as possible, further propagating this effect.
Another ability the internet has allowed is the creation of communities based around the type of information they consumed which always creates echo-chambers like you pointed out.
It's because of this that many have lost sense of the realities of other people and manifests its own distorted reality.
Not to mention, you also have multi-billion dollar companies utilizing algorithms to keep you there as long as possible, further propagating this effect.
A long, but interesting, take on the issue. Apparently on its way as a book soon
https://waitbutwhy.com/2020/01/sick-giant.html
https://waitbutwhy.com/2020/01/sick-giant.html
Social and technological forces. Specifically the interplay between the regulatory and economic spheres leads people to take a survival interest in regulation. But voters are rationally ignorant because the bandwidth of the electoral box is less than one bit per year in most cases. So they're interested, but not informed.
Furthermore the world is so complicated and technology is so powerful that people are more affected by simulated reality than real reality. Major events that affect people's lives are mediated by technology that can be used to convey falsity as easily as truth (perhaps easier).
Furthermore the world is so complicated and technology is so powerful that people are more affected by simulated reality than real reality. Major events that affect people's lives are mediated by technology that can be used to convey falsity as easily as truth (perhaps easier).
I think it's social media amplifying the divisions through targeting. I also wonder if it's culture of corruption by both political parties that is beginning to come to light? In the old days, you wouldn't read about it in the New York Times or Wall Street Journal, but now, on Twitter and other places, could could see just about anything. There is a difficult task of separating the truth from the fake news, but there is more information available, which was not available before the Internet explosion. Just my guess, though.
The US’ ruling entity (in the collective egregore sense) would cease to exist and would be replaced by another if all of us regular humans weren’t fed constant new ways to divide and hate each other.
Future Shock
(or re book Shockwave Rider)
There's too much truth for most of us, so we hide in the comforting illusions of conspiracies and deception. (especially when in some countries, like the US, there's no checks on whether the information shared is accurate or not, and there's a shortage of fact checking even among the professionals....)
Most people do to one extent or another, just it might be wiser to vett them from time to time. It's a way of dealing with overwhelming information.
There's too much truth for most of us, so we hide in the comforting illusions of conspiracies and deception. (especially when in some countries, like the US, there's no checks on whether the information shared is accurate or not, and there's a shortage of fact checking even among the professionals....)
Most people do to one extent or another, just it might be wiser to vett them from time to time. It's a way of dealing with overwhelming information.
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/peter-turchin-how-elite-ove...
I think the internet is only being used as a tool; Peter Turchin says its overproduction of the elites, too many lawyers and managers chasing too few positions leads them to fight more vigorously over a limited turf. It's turf wars gone bitter.
I think the internet is only being used as a tool; Peter Turchin says its overproduction of the elites, too many lawyers and managers chasing too few positions leads them to fight more vigorously over a limited turf. It's turf wars gone bitter.
Social media algorithms are designed to maximize engagement by spoon feeding you content you like. Everyone likes being right, so these algorithms actively create and reinforce echo chambers.
Things were going bad enough as they were... then the pandemic hit and people turned to social media as their primary means for safe socialization. The breakdown of social discourse over the last year has been disheartening at best and horrifying at worst.
Things were going bad enough as they were... then the pandemic hit and people turned to social media as their primary means for safe socialization. The breakdown of social discourse over the last year has been disheartening at best and horrifying at worst.
Modern social media and the internet is a big part of enabling masses of people to hear what they want to hear, which begets more seeking out and hearing what they want to hear, which reinforces what they've already been hearing. The root of all evil? Unfortunately enough, it seems to be the act of giving everyone an equal voice. Giving a platform for any idea to take hold really means anything ideas can take hold.
Decades and decades of making politics about wedge issues.
There aren't two realities, I would start there.
There aren’t two physical realities but there are many social realities. Borders/societies/cultures/religions/laws/... are invented by humans and become real (as in has real impact on physical reality).
Smith-Mundt Act repeal in 2010 leading to the flood of CIA propaganda directed at citizens.
As a wise man once said, the chickens have come home to roost.
As a wise man once said, the chickens have come home to roost.
Sometimes it's almost as if the people I speak to are from a different planet. I have to explain what Facebook did to their brain.
> Politicization of media outlets
Start there, since that is the historic start point.
Many of these things are side effects of how networks of people propagate information, and where the people can be co-opted using specifically coded content.
The rest of it can also be seen as a trade off between 1-on-1 communication and Many-to-Many communications + speed of interaction.
Start there, since that is the historic start point.
Many of these things are side effects of how networks of people propagate information, and where the people can be co-opted using specifically coded content.
The rest of it can also be seen as a trade off between 1-on-1 communication and Many-to-Many communications + speed of interaction.
All of the above, but also politicians who have promised change forever and not much seems to change when one side takes over.
Add to that a pandemic lockdown championed by one side who can mostly sit safely behind a screen while the other side loses their livelyhood in small businesses.
Something had to give. I hope this will be the limit.
Add to that a pandemic lockdown championed by one side who can mostly sit safely behind a screen while the other side loses their livelyhood in small businesses.
Something had to give. I hope this will be the limit.
To me it feels like a multi-step process, caused by a mix of our worst human tendencies:
1) People prefer news coverage which confirms their previously-held beliefs (aka confirmation bias).
2) News outlets are financially incentivized to deliver news which confirms whatever beliefs we may have, since if we don't then viewers will change the channel. This causes news outlets to balkanize along various points on the political spectrum, ranging from extreme right-wing to extreme left-wing.
3) News outlets receive 100% of the gain of confirming our biases, but pay less than 100% of the total cost of doing so (aka "the tragedy of the commons").
4) Viewers end up consuming primarily (if not exclusively) media which confirms their biases. This becomes a self-reinforcing echo chamber.
5) Simultaneously, there has been a proliferation of media outlets. In the 1950s, there were 2-3 TV channels from which one could consume news. Today, there are 500 channels on DirecTV, and any number of internet news sites / Twitter accounts / etc. where you can get your fix.
6) In the old days, news outlets had to be moderate in their reporting, in order to appeal to the broadest possible audience. Conversely, the more sources of information there are, the louder any individual source must become, in order to stand out from the crowd.
7) With the internet, it's possible to create news outlets which cater to a minority of people who hold extreme viewpoints (aka capturing the long tail of the media market).
8) Over time, there are more and more outlets delivering more and more extreme reportage, and the news we consume becomes more extremist in nature.
9) Since our news diet plays a big part in shaping our worldview, over time we ourselves become more extreme.
I'd love to be wrong about this, since it doesn't bode well for the future of the human race. Someone please restore my faith in humanity by effectively rebutting the points above.
1) People prefer news coverage which confirms their previously-held beliefs (aka confirmation bias).
2) News outlets are financially incentivized to deliver news which confirms whatever beliefs we may have, since if we don't then viewers will change the channel. This causes news outlets to balkanize along various points on the political spectrum, ranging from extreme right-wing to extreme left-wing.
3) News outlets receive 100% of the gain of confirming our biases, but pay less than 100% of the total cost of doing so (aka "the tragedy of the commons").
4) Viewers end up consuming primarily (if not exclusively) media which confirms their biases. This becomes a self-reinforcing echo chamber.
5) Simultaneously, there has been a proliferation of media outlets. In the 1950s, there were 2-3 TV channels from which one could consume news. Today, there are 500 channels on DirecTV, and any number of internet news sites / Twitter accounts / etc. where you can get your fix.
6) In the old days, news outlets had to be moderate in their reporting, in order to appeal to the broadest possible audience. Conversely, the more sources of information there are, the louder any individual source must become, in order to stand out from the crowd.
7) With the internet, it's possible to create news outlets which cater to a minority of people who hold extreme viewpoints (aka capturing the long tail of the media market).
8) Over time, there are more and more outlets delivering more and more extreme reportage, and the news we consume becomes more extremist in nature.
9) Since our news diet plays a big part in shaping our worldview, over time we ourselves become more extreme.
I'd love to be wrong about this, since it doesn't bode well for the future of the human race. Someone please restore my faith in humanity by effectively rebutting the points above.
1950: The Media is news, and Politicians are political.
2020: Politicians are news, and the Media is political.
2020: Politicians are news, and the Media is political.
[deleted]
Advertising-sponsored news media that panders to what their audience wants to hear.
This has always been a tendency for humankind:
1. Gangs
2. Ethnicity
3. Nationalism
4. Religion
Groups of people latch on to an ideology and act on whatever the leader tells them to do or what they see others do. You can observe this when looking at videos of riots or other mob like behavior.
1. Gangs
2. Ethnicity
3. Nationalism
4. Religion
Groups of people latch on to an ideology and act on whatever the leader tells them to do or what they see others do. You can observe this when looking at videos of riots or other mob like behavior.
I doubt it, but the accusations of it drove people in opposition, especially those that did not care about it.
Of course not caring about it was decried as privilege. This was self-victimization to a large degree. People in western nations overwhelmingly did not care about any of these things anymore.
Of course not caring about it was decried as privilege. This was self-victimization to a large degree. People in western nations overwhelmingly did not care about any of these things anymore.
>Self-reinforcing social bubbles?
This mostly I think. It's always been a case of birds of a feather flock together. But internet communication has bridged distance and recommendation engines created echo chambers
This mostly I think. It's always been a case of birds of a feather flock together. But internet communication has bridged distance and recommendation engines created echo chambers
[deleted]
Arnold Kling's "The Three Languages of Politics" has a good answer to a piece of this puzzle.
In short, the major political 'camps' think about events with a different dimension. Conservatives think in the 'civilization vs barbarism' axis. Progressives think on the 'oppressed vs oppressor' axis. Libertarians think on the 'authoritarian vs freedom' axis.
The same event, when viewed through the corresponding filter, has different interpretations.
In short, the major political 'camps' think about events with a different dimension. Conservatives think in the 'civilization vs barbarism' axis. Progressives think on the 'oppressed vs oppressor' axis. Libertarians think on the 'authoritarian vs freedom' axis.
The same event, when viewed through the corresponding filter, has different interpretations.
Its not two realities. Its one population chunk living in reality and one chunk living in a misinformation fueled delusion. Special interests have managed to weaponize social media and misinformation. It started with allowing blatant lying and partisan propoganda to be framed as impartial news because deliberate mass misinformation is apparently free speech. Now the cat is out of the bag and the only way back is strong regulation of social and news media.
Mainstream media started killed credibility in the 80s and what we see is the result of a media that thinks it speaks for all but represents only half at best.
The President of the United States can’t admit that he lost, and is evidently willing to throw an entire country and political system under the bus in the service of his ego.
One side effect of this personality type seizing power is that the Overton window has been inflated into a vast, festering portal through which our worst nightmares can crawl out. I doubt it was his intent, but it is the result.
You’ve almost got to admire the raw primitive energy and boundlessness of that level of id. How very sad that it has been employed to such feeble ends; it will ultimately have to be crushed for democracy to prevail.
One side effect of this personality type seizing power is that the Overton window has been inflated into a vast, festering portal through which our worst nightmares can crawl out. I doubt it was his intent, but it is the result.
You’ve almost got to admire the raw primitive energy and boundlessness of that level of id. How very sad that it has been employed to such feeble ends; it will ultimately have to be crushed for democracy to prevail.
At this point, Trump has effectively created his own political party. If you look at die hard Trump supporters, they're quick to label many republicans as traitors.
If the moderates in the Republican party and the progressives in the Democratic party could hold their noses long enough to do a deal on bringing in proportional representation, perhaps some good could come out of this.
I admire your optimism, but I am of the opinion that the Senate will never loosen its grip until the day that it is destroyed.
Moderates in the Republican party and moderates in the Democratic party you mean...
The research done on manipulation of the mind based on the post ww1/2 which most know as artichoke/mkultra/monarch and it's variants in other five eyes have been condensed into a science later solidified and tested in modern wars across the globe (not just GWOT psyops) that is now being exploited on a massive scale via consolidation of power via mergers, aquisitions, and more subtle extension of control over all forms of media (print, tv, radio, and now the internet, as the oligarchs finally recognized it as a primary threat vector), academia, and politics (largely via a progressively worse bribery, coercion, blackmail (Epstein goes here), threats system) that is being used as part of a divide and conquer strategy that enables the hegellian dialectic mostly via limited hangouts and false opositions to create whatever state of reality the supranational elite want.
The reality is there is a conspiracy/are conspiracies that are coordinated by various disparate secret and not secret organizations whose goals sometimes don't but most often do overlap, and occurences like Q-anon and these protests are likely psyop techniques to distract potential genuine movements that might respond or create desired counter-responses in order to limit the fallout while the oligarchs catch up in the race against the internet as the last bastion of freedom of speech that could cause a neo-peasants revolt if the people found out the truth.
The reality is there is a conspiracy/are conspiracies that are coordinated by various disparate secret and not secret organizations whose goals sometimes don't but most often do overlap, and occurences like Q-anon and these protests are likely psyop techniques to distract potential genuine movements that might respond or create desired counter-responses in order to limit the fallout while the oligarchs catch up in the race against the internet as the last bastion of freedom of speech that could cause a neo-peasants revolt if the people found out the truth.
[deleted]
The internet allows for mass influence of the population by third party actors. This is largely China vs Russia. I have trouble not playing this out at scale and drawing the conclusion the internet inherently invalidates a lot of the assumptions democracy (as in the American Experiment™ version of it) requires to function. I hope I'm wrong and overly pessimistic.
You're forgetting the largest player, which dwarfs all the others 10 times over - the US itself. The US propaganda machine is so far ahead of Russia and China that even discussing Russian and Chinese influence over the Internet of all places is laughable.
Very true. There are huge language barriers that makes this unlikely. You don't get a 5 cent army of people highly proficient in another language and presenting manipulative talking points. There are those people, but they would still have difficulties reaching large audiences.
> This is largely China vs Russia.
I would like to question this a bit. If this were true, wouldn't this mean that China won this time since Biden is the President (vs Russia won in 2016 since Trump was the President)?
I think there are a lot more internal actors, such as special interest groups, PACs, activist groups, etc..., that may dwarf the external influence. There is so much money involved in politics and elections. I wonder how can we curtail the flow of money to make things more civil in politics?
I would like to question this a bit. If this were true, wouldn't this mean that China won this time since Biden is the President (vs Russia won in 2016 since Trump was the President)?
I think there are a lot more internal actors, such as special interest groups, PACs, activist groups, etc..., that may dwarf the external influence. There is so much money involved in politics and elections. I wonder how can we curtail the flow of money to make things more civil in politics?
> wouldn't this mean that China won this time since Biden is the President
Only if there was interaction between the Biden campaign and the Chinese state, which there was in the case of the Trump campaign
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Links_between_Trump_associates...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_20...
Only if there was interaction between the Biden campaign and the Chinese state, which there was in the case of the Trump campaign
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Links_between_Trump_associates...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_20...
Political manipulation of the people with the acquiescence and support of corporate-dominated mass media, all driven by profit.
Seeing things like this make me wonder how long it will be until the US splits into two roughly equal-sized countries.
More like twenty. Latin America is splintered in a similar way.
But when you try to imagine how it could be split up there are all kinds of problems. e.g., obviously CA + NY makes sense plus some large cities(e.g., Chicago). It all seems untenable w/o excessive relocation a la Stalin.
Truly splitting up the USA would require a war and that's more trouble than its worth in most peoples' opinions: I've kinda grown fond of letting my neighbor's kid cut the lawn for $25, even though he is a Democrat.
Now, OTOH, spinning off a state or two is within reach: e.g., giving CA and NY their independence would be fine with me. But then that's just me!8-))
Truly splitting up the USA would require a war and that's more trouble than its worth in most peoples' opinions: I've kinda grown fond of letting my neighbor's kid cut the lawn for $25, even though he is a Democrat.
Now, OTOH, spinning off a state or two is within reach: e.g., giving CA and NY their independence would be fine with me. But then that's just me!8-))
Denialism. Wanting something so badly to be true that you try to change the world to make it true. Humans have a unique ability to shape their world with thoughts alone. Borders, nations, cultures, laws etc. are humans making up stuff that then becomes real (as in having real consequences).
I believe the Social Dilemma documentary on Netflix answers this question pretty well.
The same way any cult-like phenomenon divorces its followers from reality.
In this case a charismatic demagogue (Donald Trump) has built a cult of personality around himself. He and his enablers employ many of the tactics used by other cult-like organizations, such religious organizations (e.g. scientology), or otherwise (i.e. multilevel marketing schemes). These organizations offer the opportunity to be apart of something "great" and "historic", to teach you how to be strong, to transform yourself from "zero to hero", and have fellowship with other like minded individuals who have the will and desire to improve their lives too. In return they demand absolute, unquestioning, and unwavering fealty.
This has little to do with political orientation (left vs right) and everything to do with Donald Trump. There is currently a "civil war" going on inside the GOP, and the most vicious attacks from the cult-of-MAGA tend to be aimed at members of the political right who voice even the slightest dissent and are thus deemed "insufficiently loyal" (i.e. counterrevolutionaries).
In this case a charismatic demagogue (Donald Trump) has built a cult of personality around himself. He and his enablers employ many of the tactics used by other cult-like organizations, such religious organizations (e.g. scientology), or otherwise (i.e. multilevel marketing schemes). These organizations offer the opportunity to be apart of something "great" and "historic", to teach you how to be strong, to transform yourself from "zero to hero", and have fellowship with other like minded individuals who have the will and desire to improve their lives too. In return they demand absolute, unquestioning, and unwavering fealty.
This has little to do with political orientation (left vs right) and everything to do with Donald Trump. There is currently a "civil war" going on inside the GOP, and the most vicious attacks from the cult-of-MAGA tend to be aimed at members of the political right who voice even the slightest dissent and are thus deemed "insufficiently loyal" (i.e. counterrevolutionaries).
A boiling frog variant of social scale depression. Not enough positive news, too many cracks, doubts. The rest is human nature regressing due to this imbalance. Absolutely not helped by hectic shallow news and social tissue of the day.
My 2 cents
My 2 cents
1st amendment did envision the mass personalized misinformation that social networks have enabled. We need to remove all emotion based advertisement in political ads ASAP. No music, no personalities, no scary adjectives.
It's the freedom to choose. People can chooose what they consume. It's right that it's a right. But this "right" has been exploited by media $$$ to manipulate the gullible and unlearned. Sad.
The two realities existed at the founding of the country (probably since forever). One reality requires evidence, one requires belief. They are hard to reconcile. Galileo vs The Pope.
All these years exporting democracy, you just might have run out
IMHO we need government regulation around social media. They’re publishers, in some new and novel form.
Right now no social media company will get serious about targeted propaganda because it would cut into their profits.
But regulation can create a level playing field - the rules apply to everyone, so, more-or-less, everyone’s profits take a hit and now you’re not putting yourself in a weaker position vis-a-vis your competitors by addressing all these issues we are seeing.
Regulation can create a level playing field and solve the collective action problem by making all companies do the same thing at the same time, more-or-less.
Right now no social media company will get serious about targeted propaganda because it would cut into their profits.
But regulation can create a level playing field - the rules apply to everyone, so, more-or-less, everyone’s profits take a hit and now you’re not putting yourself in a weaker position vis-a-vis your competitors by addressing all these issues we are seeing.
Regulation can create a level playing field and solve the collective action problem by making all companies do the same thing at the same time, more-or-less.
People mistaking reality for what they want it to be, false sense of morality, opposed to the basic survival interest of the other group.
Done. You tell me which is which.
Done. You tell me which is which.
A lot of lies and intentional attempts to build exactly this situation.
Also, issue is not polarization itself. Issue is that chunk of Americans wants to revert election.
Also, issue is not polarization itself. Issue is that chunk of Americans wants to revert election.
[deleted]
It's a prelude to a "Two State Solution".
Probably not a bad idea to keep the peace.
Or more practically, greater freedom for the states, and less federal power.
Probably not a bad idea to keep the peace.
Or more practically, greater freedom for the states, and less federal power.
A peaceful separation is the only tenable long-term solution.
[deleted]
[deleted]
The thing about reality is that there's actually only one. Some of us have come unmoored from it.
I don't think we are in that situation at all. I think that everybody - regardless of their politics or candidates of choice - is frequently inundated with the notion that we're very different.
But having visited 43 states in the past five years, and making it my business to talk politics and religion everywhere I have gone (especially in the aftermath of the 2016 election), I have repeatedly been surprised by the simple commonness of people's hopes: for peace, justice, security, prosperity.
Most people with whom I spend my time seem to think that Trump voters are all just like Trump. But I have not found that to be so whatsoever. I have repeatedly been surprised and sometimes even confused by the reasonableness and sophistication of Trump supporters, especially in the South.
And rage at America's institutions - including surely dreams of raiding the Capitol and wrecking havok - is surely not limited to one party of political view. It's not a tactic I favor, though I do certainly hope to see this silly building fade into the irrelevance of the failed state.
The incentives of social media algorithms are influential in the way we think about each other.
We are constantly shown Trump supporters who can't form a coherent and fact-based narrative. We're shown 'antifa' who seem to prefer roving destruction and mayhem rather than an equitable society.
But neither of these tropes reflect anything close to the reality of 2020 America. We are a society of peaceful, educated, hopeful people. Travel. Ask. You'll see.
But having visited 43 states in the past five years, and making it my business to talk politics and religion everywhere I have gone (especially in the aftermath of the 2016 election), I have repeatedly been surprised by the simple commonness of people's hopes: for peace, justice, security, prosperity.
Most people with whom I spend my time seem to think that Trump voters are all just like Trump. But I have not found that to be so whatsoever. I have repeatedly been surprised and sometimes even confused by the reasonableness and sophistication of Trump supporters, especially in the South.
And rage at America's institutions - including surely dreams of raiding the Capitol and wrecking havok - is surely not limited to one party of political view. It's not a tactic I favor, though I do certainly hope to see this silly building fade into the irrelevance of the failed state.
The incentives of social media algorithms are influential in the way we think about each other.
We are constantly shown Trump supporters who can't form a coherent and fact-based narrative. We're shown 'antifa' who seem to prefer roving destruction and mayhem rather than an equitable society.
But neither of these tropes reflect anything close to the reality of 2020 America. We are a society of peaceful, educated, hopeful people. Travel. Ask. You'll see.
coming to the thread 5 hours after its posting, and seeing this, the first sensible take (comment #140 or so), in a shade of grey is thoroughly disheartening.
we need more of this on-the-ground reasonableness to overtake the tribal bullshit we're all wading in up to our eyeballs. it's not simply the media (though they in general are complicit), or just politicians (also complicit), or social tech (super-cash-grabbing complicit), or "the people" (most aren't playing that game, but the 'influentials' certainly are). it's power, consolidating and exerting its will, to subjugate people by any means necessary.
we need more of this on-the-ground reasonableness to overtake the tribal bullshit we're all wading in up to our eyeballs. it's not simply the media (though they in general are complicit), or just politicians (also complicit), or social tech (super-cash-grabbing complicit), or "the people" (most aren't playing that game, but the 'influentials' certainly are). it's power, consolidating and exerting its will, to subjugate people by any means necessary.
Social media.
Being a member of the "liberal elite" (I think I am) I think it is our fault.
We lost our mojo. We forgot that leadership is not leaving anybody behind.
We left a lot of people behind, then we blamed them for not keeping up.
Sorry, on behalf of my class, I really am sorry. The consequences, when we face ecological catastrophe, could be very serious indeed.
Stay safe, people, and be kind
We lost our mojo. We forgot that leadership is not leaving anybody behind.
We left a lot of people behind, then we blamed them for not keeping up.
Sorry, on behalf of my class, I really am sorry. The consequences, when we face ecological catastrophe, could be very serious indeed.
Stay safe, people, and be kind
> We left a lot of people behind, then we blamed them for not keeping up.
Haven't they been demanding to be left behind every step of the way? For decades they've opposed minimum wage, socialized healthcare, welfare, unions and just about anything "socialist" that would have helped them. Couple that with ever increasing urbanization that is not going to be reversed anytime soon, what could you possibly do to help them not be left behind?
Haven't they been demanding to be left behind every step of the way? For decades they've opposed minimum wage, socialized healthcare, welfare, unions and just about anything "socialist" that would have helped them. Couple that with ever increasing urbanization that is not going to be reversed anytime soon, what could you possibly do to help them not be left behind?
"minimum wage, socialized healthcare, welfare, unions"
We have those things in Europe and yet our economic periphery (Italy, Spain, Greece, to a degree France and former East Germany) is very similar to American rust belt. High unemployment, numerous industries collapsed, bitter voters casting their lot with populists and extremists.
The Yellow Vests in France were much more violent than anything that happened in USA recently, and they were driven by the same combination of economic uncertainty and alienation from the political elite.
We have those things in Europe and yet our economic periphery (Italy, Spain, Greece, to a degree France and former East Germany) is very similar to American rust belt. High unemployment, numerous industries collapsed, bitter voters casting their lot with populists and extremists.
The Yellow Vests in France were much more violent than anything that happened in USA recently, and they were driven by the same combination of economic uncertainty and alienation from the political elite.
Well, at least there's one sensible person here, but don't look at yourself as an Atlas. Like it or not, it's one of these dirty collective behavior issues we haven't all come to terms with yet.
I think it goes back to how the culture war split the working class from the left and led the left to become associated with rich coastal mega-cities. The working class is predominately socially conservative.
Is there data to support the claim that working class people are more (or less) socially conservative than others?
Its just easier to believe what you want to believe. Than what really is.
I would suggest watching Adam Curtis' Hypernormalisation (British spelling). It's mostly about Putin/Gaddafi-style mass confusion as a means to power.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUiqaFIONPQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUiqaFIONPQ
This was made before Trump was elected and it's amazing how accurate it is in hindsight.
1. The rise of mass media, and a mass media culture that promotes scare news.
2. The rise of social media which allows people to tailor their content to what they want to hear, including conspiracy theories
3. A general trend over the last 20 years of Americans becoming more isolated in their own communities from one another, leading to distrust of others
4. Various individuals and groups have an interest in keeping the US government divided and gridlocked to avoid legislation damaging their interests.
5. Trump. Trump has promoted this, directly and indirectly, throughout 2020.
The people who are in the sacrifice zone of US capitalism have been groomed in their ignorance by the Republican party.
Now even the reality that they are not a majority is too hard for them to understand.
Now even the reality that they are not a majority is too hard for them to understand.
Education and media consumed
[deleted]
I think it's been a long time in the making but the real spark that lit the fire was the media's (and general population's) passive treatment of Trump's lying in the 2016 election period. During that time he was already telling whoppers, and the media sort of humoured it. You can see now four year's later that his version of reality is deeply embedded in a way that is nearly impossible to correct for - this make take a generation now to pass. Simply calmly stating that his words are "without evidence" or "unsupported by facts" etc etc isn't enough. When figures of authority depart from objective reality you have to stop it right there. He should never have been given another interview question other than to question his lies. But that was perceived as partisan at the time so they just let these things slide by.
Depending on what media you consume they didn't just "humor it", they actively reinforced whatever he was saying, and vice versa.
Many organizations were fact checking and calling out the President, but they were part of the "lamestream media" and his supporters were explicitly told not to listen to or trust them.
Many organizations were fact checking and calling out the President, but they were part of the "lamestream media" and his supporters were explicitly told not to listen to or trust them.
Personalized ads.
I don't see section 230 lasting much longer
Hmmm idk... anyway, time to get back to grinding leetcode so I can go work at Facebook and make 200k instead of a paltry 150k somewhere else!!
[deleted]
Underrated post. I'm still trying to figure out a way to help a nephew of mine come into political awareness without necessarily tainting him with my biases.
The Social Dilemma should be watched by all tech developers and designers. The dramatic scenes are a bit campy but the interviews are incredible and biting.
It's called democracy.
Moreover my analysis and reflection of the last 4 years where in I awakened and gained a sort of political consciousness after previously in my life having zero care for politics in any way is
This is a particular evolution of democracy which I call Democratic theater and it relies on deceptive control of the population by the media and the intelligence and security apparatus to provide the illusion of freedom to prevent the need for delivering real results by keeping the population in a constant state of confusion and conflict by supporting both sides of an artificial divide to prolong the state of conflict
I guess some of the beneficiaries of this are upwards who can benefit from the enhanced media appeal of this division but I think the primary beneficiary is the status quo and it's done to preserve power in a system where people expect to be free but are basically constrained but given this outlet which is a sort of cathartic entertainment, the purpose of which is to channel genuine to satisfaction into controlled avenues so that it never actually emerges as revolution or organized political action that has any chance of disrupting the status quo in a meaningful way
I believe it's a form of controlled opposition where a cabal of intelligence security and media interests control both sides of the conflict and I believe these sort of mass phenomena are driven by masters of narrative control psychology sociology.
I started off believing that Trump would do what he said and kind of save America and root out these shackles and the cabal of interest that keeps them in place but it seems he was just a charlatan who couldn't deliver and perhaps never intended to. I now believe it's likely that Trump was probably compromised by the very same cabal of interests who got him to dance to the tune they wanted as a puppet for 4 years as part of his great charade
In essence all of this Democratic theater is more window dressing for business as usual.
I'm happy to hear different opinions and to update my own perspective but I'm not going to debate this it simply the belief that I've arrived at at this time after many years of reflection and thought.
Moreover my analysis and reflection of the last 4 years where in I awakened and gained a sort of political consciousness after previously in my life having zero care for politics in any way is
This is a particular evolution of democracy which I call Democratic theater and it relies on deceptive control of the population by the media and the intelligence and security apparatus to provide the illusion of freedom to prevent the need for delivering real results by keeping the population in a constant state of confusion and conflict by supporting both sides of an artificial divide to prolong the state of conflict
I guess some of the beneficiaries of this are upwards who can benefit from the enhanced media appeal of this division but I think the primary beneficiary is the status quo and it's done to preserve power in a system where people expect to be free but are basically constrained but given this outlet which is a sort of cathartic entertainment, the purpose of which is to channel genuine to satisfaction into controlled avenues so that it never actually emerges as revolution or organized political action that has any chance of disrupting the status quo in a meaningful way
I believe it's a form of controlled opposition where a cabal of intelligence security and media interests control both sides of the conflict and I believe these sort of mass phenomena are driven by masters of narrative control psychology sociology.
I started off believing that Trump would do what he said and kind of save America and root out these shackles and the cabal of interest that keeps them in place but it seems he was just a charlatan who couldn't deliver and perhaps never intended to. I now believe it's likely that Trump was probably compromised by the very same cabal of interests who got him to dance to the tune they wanted as a puppet for 4 years as part of his great charade
In essence all of this Democratic theater is more window dressing for business as usual.
I'm happy to hear different opinions and to update my own perspective but I'm not going to debate this it simply the belief that I've arrived at at this time after many years of reflection and thought.
I am very interested to hear about this cabal that controls both Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell - how does that work? How did the ACA get passed in such an environment? How did the Trump Tax Cut get passed? NAFTA? The failure of the TPP? What about the provisions in the recent omnibus that contained all sorts of support for green energy? What are the mechanics of this system?
Both parties are beholden to mega-corporations.
The public disagreements are over things that the corporations absolutely don't care about one way or the other, or that they are divided over. The one thing neither side will ever even hint at doing is make corporations and their officers responsible for the consequences of their actions and choices.
The public disagreements are over things that the corporations absolutely don't care about one way or the other, or that they are divided over. The one thing neither side will ever even hint at doing is make corporations and their officers responsible for the consequences of their actions and choices.
Right, so how does that work? What is the mechanism of being beholden that allows the ACA to pass with an expansion of Medicaid? What is the mechanism that allows for the expansion in most states but not all? Who pulled these specific strings in these specific places in those specific instances?
I just want and concrete example.
I just want and concrete example.
ACA is a case where megacorporations were and are not in agreement.
To pretend to be unaware of dependence of most US politicians on corporate campaign donations is not a way to participate in an honest discussion.
To pretend to be unaware of dependence of most US politicians on corporate campaign donations is not a way to participate in an honest discussion.
Right, so how did it work?
How did what work? ACA was a thing that various corporate backers did not all agree about.
For the phenomenon I am talking about, both sides agree, and you never hear a peep about what they agreed on. For example, was any corporate officer of any large bank prosecuted for millions of counts of fraud, after 2008? For even one count? Did any single one go to prison? Tim Geithner got made SecTreas, instead.
The DoD every year utterly fails to account for how most of the money they are handed was spent. Do you imagine that is because it can't be done? That they can't follow orders? The major corporations account for more than that amount, every year, every dime.
For the phenomenon I am talking about, both sides agree, and you never hear a peep about what they agreed on. For example, was any corporate officer of any large bank prosecuted for millions of counts of fraud, after 2008? For even one count? Did any single one go to prison? Tim Geithner got made SecTreas, instead.
The DoD every year utterly fails to account for how most of the money they are handed was spent. Do you imagine that is because it can't be done? That they can't follow orders? The major corporations account for more than that amount, every year, every dime.
Who are the corporate backers that supported expanding medicaid in the ACA? They didn't agree so who was on which side?
If you want to talk about the 2008 financial crisis, ok. Why did Dodd-Frank pass? Why did the corporate backers allow for the creation of the CFPB? How is it that only once Trump came into office did it stop doing its job?
You are asserting that there is a cabal of corporations controlling politics in the USA, what do they actually agree on specifically? Why have things in many instances actually changed when administrations change?
If you want to talk about the 2008 financial crisis, ok. Why did Dodd-Frank pass? Why did the corporate backers allow for the creation of the CFPB? How is it that only once Trump came into office did it stop doing its job?
You are asserting that there is a cabal of corporations controlling politics in the USA, what do they actually agree on specifically? Why have things in many instances actually changed when administrations change?
I have already said, twice, what they all agree on. You may go back and read what I said.
Things change because things change. Look to the things that don't change, instead. Spook whistleblowers are hounded into solitary confinement right through Bush, Obama, and Trump presidencies. Random innocent people are vaporized from the sky in countries we are not at war with, right through Bush, Obama, and Trump presidencies. Massive fraud campaigns ordered by officers of major corporations are prosecuted with exactly zero of such officers ever imprisoned or even inconvenienced, right through Bush, Obama, and Trump presidencies.
Things change because things change. Look to the things that don't change, instead. Spook whistleblowers are hounded into solitary confinement right through Bush, Obama, and Trump presidencies. Random innocent people are vaporized from the sky in countries we are not at war with, right through Bush, Obama, and Trump presidencies. Massive fraud campaigns ordered by officers of major corporations are prosecuted with exactly zero of such officers ever imprisoned or even inconvenienced, right through Bush, Obama, and Trump presidencies.
Oh, no submissions, what a surprise. No one knows who you are.
I'll tell you more when you give me your email address to discuss. And a public profile with your real name. I'll share mine, if you have the cojones to share yours, friend.
I'll tell you more when you give me your email address to discuss. And a public profile with your real name. I'll share mine, if you have the cojones to share yours, friend.
This is ridiculous, people shouldn’t have to give up their anonymity to debate their ideas.
I'm comfortable with those terms, and just as i said, I'm not going to debate it but I'm happy to hear different perspectives. None have been proposed, and just as i expected, the commenter is pretending, and does not have the courage of conviction.
Nothing in the comment faults my words. And what I'm saying is too important to tarnish with a dishonest discussion with someone being dishonest.
I know you hope you can dismiss this view with some metacommentary, but nothing raised has challenged what i said, and i think you're wasting your time by continuing to comment because you're not succeeding in dismantling the ideas i presented.
I have a solution for you, that i proposed initially. You don't want to believe this idea, so simply don't. Just refuse to believe it. That will be easiest for you and i really do not want anything to be hard for you.
Nothing in the comment faults my words. And what I'm saying is too important to tarnish with a dishonest discussion with someone being dishonest.
I know you hope you can dismiss this view with some metacommentary, but nothing raised has challenged what i said, and i think you're wasting your time by continuing to comment because you're not succeeding in dismantling the ideas i presented.
I have a solution for you, that i proposed initially. You don't want to believe this idea, so simply don't. Just refuse to believe it. That will be easiest for you and i really do not want anything to be hard for you.
He asked for specific evidence for your beliefs, that is absolutely a challenge. You couldn't rise to the occasion and give proof. You don't have to condescendingly tell me to not believe in your ideas, you already made it extremely easy to do so by providing no proof. There's nothing to dismantle if there isn't anything concrete in your hypothesis. You stand for and believe in nothing that matters, it is you who is playing pretend and lacks the courage or conviction.
You are right about one thing, this is a waste of time. Reply with whatever nonsense you want or don't, I'm done here.
You are right about one thing, this is a waste of time. Reply with whatever nonsense you want or don't, I'm done here.
This funny. You expend a lot of words on something which you say has no proof. If you didn't fear these ideas to be true, why spend so so much effort defending they can't be?
That comment asked for how, that's not a challenge, nor a refutation.
You don't want to face this idea, so to try to avoid engaging with it, you pretend you need to see more to merely consider it. But you can consider it immediately, and relate it to the world you see.
I understand that's not something you want, and it's hard for you, and I don't want it to be hard for you, so you could try just not believing it. And you can do that, without pretending you've disproved it. Why are you unwilling to disbelieve without pretending you've also disproved it, yet at the same time refusing try to disprove it by addressing and criticizing it? No wonder you seem upset, it must be very hard to be stuck in such a bind. But it's no one else's responsibility to get you out of that except yourself. It's your responsibility what you choose to believe or not and it's your responsibility to convince yourself or not of ideas, no one else's.
You work it out. You can think and use your mind.
You say it's condescending to note you own your own beliefs but it seems more condescending or arrogant or immature or irresponsible to try to incorrectly put the responsibility on other people, for what you choose to believe and how you choose to believe it.
If you are open and curious I'm sure you'd be willing to engage with an idea and criticize it but it seems from your comment that you've already decided that whatever other people write here will be nonsense, which is similar to how you decided that other ideas are nonsense without engaging and criticizing them, you don't seem open and curious at all. it seems much more like denial and psychological avoidance. which makes sense because these ideas are challenging and they threaten the worldview and the associated sense of security and stability with that.
So this problem where you shut your mind off and refuse to consider and critique the ideas and instead of this project onto others to demand that they solve the problem for you, is a common pathological projection pattern, but you can fix it, accepting you got yourself into this place and owning your own beliefs and the responsibility to convince yourself or not of ideas that you encounter.
Best of luck, hope this helps!
That comment asked for how, that's not a challenge, nor a refutation.
You don't want to face this idea, so to try to avoid engaging with it, you pretend you need to see more to merely consider it. But you can consider it immediately, and relate it to the world you see.
I understand that's not something you want, and it's hard for you, and I don't want it to be hard for you, so you could try just not believing it. And you can do that, without pretending you've disproved it. Why are you unwilling to disbelieve without pretending you've also disproved it, yet at the same time refusing try to disprove it by addressing and criticizing it? No wonder you seem upset, it must be very hard to be stuck in such a bind. But it's no one else's responsibility to get you out of that except yourself. It's your responsibility what you choose to believe or not and it's your responsibility to convince yourself or not of ideas, no one else's.
You work it out. You can think and use your mind.
You say it's condescending to note you own your own beliefs but it seems more condescending or arrogant or immature or irresponsible to try to incorrectly put the responsibility on other people, for what you choose to believe and how you choose to believe it.
If you are open and curious I'm sure you'd be willing to engage with an idea and criticize it but it seems from your comment that you've already decided that whatever other people write here will be nonsense, which is similar to how you decided that other ideas are nonsense without engaging and criticizing them, you don't seem open and curious at all. it seems much more like denial and psychological avoidance. which makes sense because these ideas are challenging and they threaten the worldview and the associated sense of security and stability with that.
So this problem where you shut your mind off and refuse to consider and critique the ideas and instead of this project onto others to demand that they solve the problem for you, is a common pathological projection pattern, but you can fix it, accepting you got yourself into this place and owning your own beliefs and the responsibility to convince yourself or not of ideas that you encounter.
Best of luck, hope this helps!
Unfortunately he already said he is not going to debate this probably because it falls apart under any informed scrutiny.
You can probably believe that if it makes it easier for you. I do not want things to be hard for you.
It’s not a matter of belief. I’m reading the words you wrote, specifically your last paragraph. If your ideas hold up surely you’d be able to answer his fairly basic questions. But they don’t which is why you resort to asking for peoples email addresses and identities, as if that has any bearing on the merit of what you’re saying
It's all belief. Nothing said contradicts my points. You're pretending it doesn't hold up, because that's easier than facing them.
You have my statement. Rather than pretending it doesn't hold up, why not specifically address my statement and demonstrate to yourself how you believe it to be false.
You have my statement. Rather than pretending it doesn't hold up, why not specifically address my statement and demonstrate to yourself how you believe it to be false.
You are the one stating there is a real cabal, why don't you provide proof of who is in it, what they do, and how it works. Until you have that I'm not going to pretend that what you propose is the case. That which can be easily asserted without proof can be just as easily dismissed.
You have the idea, it's not my job to give you proof, you can think for yourself and see it. Sounds like you blame someone else instead of owning your choice to believe or not. Trying to dismiss the idea as false without criticizing it, or giving evidence that counters it, is self-deception. You can simply choose to disbelieve without pretending it's unbelievable. That's what I suggest you do, because it seems like a hard idea for you to consider, and I don't want it to be hard for you. Have a good day!
Edit restriction, s/upwards/corporates/
freedom of speech to say anything and everything regardless of if it's true or not?
[deleted]
I think these three books offer a solid framework for providing an answer to your question:
1) The System: Who Rigged It, How We Fix It by Robert Reich [0]
- Reich drops the buzzword neoliberalism in favor of the word power. I like that as neoliberalism is a terrible phrase for the concept it describes, but make no mistake, it's the insidious, invisible nature of neoliberalism that put our country in a position where neither party served the people well. That is what Reich describes here.
2) The Loudest Voice in the Room: How the Brilliant, Bombastic Roger Ailes Built Fox News-and Divided a Country by Gabriel Sherman [1]
- There is also a Showtime miniseries based on the book you could watch. Pair with the movie Bombshell
3) Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right by Jane Mayer [2]
[0] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/52118381-the-system
[1] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/15981705-the-loudest-voi...
[2] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/27833494-dark-money
1) The System: Who Rigged It, How We Fix It by Robert Reich [0]
- Reich drops the buzzword neoliberalism in favor of the word power. I like that as neoliberalism is a terrible phrase for the concept it describes, but make no mistake, it's the insidious, invisible nature of neoliberalism that put our country in a position where neither party served the people well. That is what Reich describes here.
2) The Loudest Voice in the Room: How the Brilliant, Bombastic Roger Ailes Built Fox News-and Divided a Country by Gabriel Sherman [1]
- There is also a Showtime miniseries based on the book you could watch. Pair with the movie Bombshell
3) Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right by Jane Mayer [2]
[0] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/52118381-the-system
[1] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/15981705-the-loudest-voi...
[2] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/27833494-dark-money
Your news is just flat out awful and has been for a long time.
From OANN to Fox to MSNBC; it's all us-vs-them, fear the others, be afraid, be angry, and stay tuned in for more.
Every time I visit your country I'm apalled and horrified by your news media. It's blatantly exploiting basic animal instinct and core emotions to hook viewers in order to sell ads.
You are a product of your media.
And then there's the network effects of Facebook, Twitter and Parlor...
From OANN to Fox to MSNBC; it's all us-vs-them, fear the others, be afraid, be angry, and stay tuned in for more.
Every time I visit your country I'm apalled and horrified by your news media. It's blatantly exploiting basic animal instinct and core emotions to hook viewers in order to sell ads.
You are a product of your media.
And then there's the network effects of Facebook, Twitter and Parlor...
Those aren't the news channels. They're entertainment. The news is on PBS. The times and journal are good if you stay away from the clearly marked opinion section.
I have my qualms with the CBC, but I'll take it over basically any American news media any day.
We have a couple of important institutions that safeguard our news media:
https://cbsc.ca/
https://cbc.radio-canada.ca/en/ombudsman/
We have a couple of important institutions that safeguard our news media:
https://cbsc.ca/
https://cbc.radio-canada.ca/en/ombudsman/
Very true, even media like NPR is very biased as well. I've stopped reading main stream media entirely.
I am sure there'd be plenty of pundits soon enough blaming China, Russia, Iran, Venezuela, Syria....anything but a deep reflection upon Americans themselves.
> How did we arrive to this point where a huge chunk of the population is in one reality and another huge chunk of the population is in another reality? Segregation of information sources? Politicization of media outlets? Self-reinforcing social bubbles? A combination of all of them and more?
No, that has nothing to do with it.
Take a look on wide base social polls across Western countries.
The seemingly "extreme" right turn in Europe at around the refugee crisis wasn't one unexpected if you count that.
It's just that huge social mass was very latent, and quiet as nobody wanted to be stigmatized as a nazi. Now, it isn't.
You cannot "deaf it out," and expect the problem to disappear.
Terrible social rifts can last centuries in silence. Example: Greek independence war was more than a century ago, and seemingly forgotten before it gave Ottomans the last blow, and then 50 years later, Turkey. And it seems it never really ended given what is going on in the Mediterranean now.
In the "peaceful" Western Europe, Schleswig war has ended 150 years ago, nations of Europe embraced in brotherly love, and the legacy of the conflict was ceremonially buried 10 times over, but people of Schleswig still tell of icy silence.
No, that has nothing to do with it.
Take a look on wide base social polls across Western countries.
The seemingly "extreme" right turn in Europe at around the refugee crisis wasn't one unexpected if you count that.
It's just that huge social mass was very latent, and quiet as nobody wanted to be stigmatized as a nazi. Now, it isn't.
You cannot "deaf it out," and expect the problem to disappear.
Terrible social rifts can last centuries in silence. Example: Greek independence war was more than a century ago, and seemingly forgotten before it gave Ottomans the last blow, and then 50 years later, Turkey. And it seems it never really ended given what is going on in the Mediterranean now.
In the "peaceful" Western Europe, Schleswig war has ended 150 years ago, nations of Europe embraced in brotherly love, and the legacy of the conflict was ceremonially buried 10 times over, but people of Schleswig still tell of icy silence.
> people of Schleswig still tell of icy silence.
They do? I've spent time in both Kiel and Flensburg and I've seen no indication that anyone would prefer Danish rule. It seems a moot point today with the EU anyway.
They do? I've spent time in both Kiel and Flensburg and I've seen no indication that anyone would prefer Danish rule. It seems a moot point today with the EU anyway.
> How did we arrive to this point where a huge chunk of the population is in one reality and another huge chunk of the population is in another reality?
It's always been that way. We've been at war with each other since the very beginning. North vs South. Federalists vs Anti-Federalists. Nativists vs Pro-Immigration. Protectionist vs Free Trade.
Heck, just a decade or so into the republic a vice president and a secretary of treasury had a duel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burr%E2%80%93Hamilton_duel
The easiest tell is in the name. "United" States of America. If we were so united, we wouldn't have the need to put united since it would be self-evident.
The only times we've come together, briefly, is when we have a common enemy - whether it is natives, blacks, germans, japanese, russians, chinese, mexicans, etc. For a brief few weeks, the country was united after 9/11.
> Segregation of information sources? Politicization of media outlets? Self-reinforcing social bubbles? A combination of all of them and more?
Nope. You can have the same information and two people are going to come to two different conclusions. Forcing the entire country to watch CNN or Foxnews isn't going to solve the problem. It is just going to antagonize one side even more.
You can argue that it is impossible for a country as large as the US ( or china, russia, india, etc ) to be "united". Too many people across too vast a territory to keep everyone's interests aligned. Heck, you can argue that these aren't really countries but empires too. And all empires eventually crumble.
But the truth is that huge chunks of the population have lived under different realities in the US since the very beginning and has continued ever since.
It's always been that way. We've been at war with each other since the very beginning. North vs South. Federalists vs Anti-Federalists. Nativists vs Pro-Immigration. Protectionist vs Free Trade.
Heck, just a decade or so into the republic a vice president and a secretary of treasury had a duel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burr%E2%80%93Hamilton_duel
The easiest tell is in the name. "United" States of America. If we were so united, we wouldn't have the need to put united since it would be self-evident.
The only times we've come together, briefly, is when we have a common enemy - whether it is natives, blacks, germans, japanese, russians, chinese, mexicans, etc. For a brief few weeks, the country was united after 9/11.
> Segregation of information sources? Politicization of media outlets? Self-reinforcing social bubbles? A combination of all of them and more?
Nope. You can have the same information and two people are going to come to two different conclusions. Forcing the entire country to watch CNN or Foxnews isn't going to solve the problem. It is just going to antagonize one side even more.
You can argue that it is impossible for a country as large as the US ( or china, russia, india, etc ) to be "united". Too many people across too vast a territory to keep everyone's interests aligned. Heck, you can argue that these aren't really countries but empires too. And all empires eventually crumble.
But the truth is that huge chunks of the population have lived under different realities in the US since the very beginning and has continued ever since.
I just wrote a full post on this:
https://battlepenguin.com/philosophy/the-fracturing-of-the-h...
https://battlepenguin.com/philosophy/the-fracturing-of-the-h...
Corporate media allows both the incentive of manipulating people to increase views and the prospective of buying good press.
Search bubbles by Google and others probably don't help.
[deleted]
Zamicol(1)
Evolution. We each run a VR inside our minds. When they are synchronized by an external force, the media, very interesting things can happen.
If you would like more of this, continue to ignore non-virtual reality.
If you would like more of this, continue to ignore non-virtual reality.
tomp(2)
Auracle(8)
The question here kind of implies that there are two kind of equal realities that these chunks of the population occupy but I think that is not a great framing for understanding what is going on.
The vast majority of the US population live in a very normal a-political reality that is largely untouched by narratives that drive the higher-engaged folks' perception of what is going on.
The sliver of the US population that genuinely occupy a different reality is dominated by people that occupy an almost exclusively right-wing media reality. (There is a left-wing media reality for sure, but it is microscopic, counterpunch is just not that highly trafficked!)
The riots in the capitol today demonstrated this quite clearly when contrasted with the protests that kick off the Trump presidency. The "women's' march" was a fairly clear statement in acknowledgement of Trump's presidency but a denial that it was truly representative of popular will. Today's demonstration & riot was populated by a mix of people consuming non-facts and fabulists exploiting those people. QAnon followers were prominent and appeared to be at least a plurality if not a majority of the participants. The people filming themselves in Nancy Pelosi's office were prominent neo-nazis or YouTube provocateurs (Fuentes and BakedAlasaka).
A few thousand people on the capitol overwhelmed a police force that was at least partially sympathetic and was certainly understaffed, in the alternate reality where the opposition to Trump were anti-democratic in the same way they would overwhelm any force arrayed against them in a similar way much more easily through sheer quantity, but they don't hold those views or endorse those methods.
Roughly 1/3rd of voters thing the presidential election was fraudulent, but closer to 1/5th think Trump really won according to Morning Consult, some of this is just facing the fact that the US has always been a bit of a low-trust/conspiratorial society. Some of what is going on is certainly better reporting on what is really happening - things that have actually always happened. Some of what is happening is just good old fashioned bad leadership!
The vast majority of the US population live in a very normal a-political reality that is largely untouched by narratives that drive the higher-engaged folks' perception of what is going on.
The sliver of the US population that genuinely occupy a different reality is dominated by people that occupy an almost exclusively right-wing media reality. (There is a left-wing media reality for sure, but it is microscopic, counterpunch is just not that highly trafficked!)
The riots in the capitol today demonstrated this quite clearly when contrasted with the protests that kick off the Trump presidency. The "women's' march" was a fairly clear statement in acknowledgement of Trump's presidency but a denial that it was truly representative of popular will. Today's demonstration & riot was populated by a mix of people consuming non-facts and fabulists exploiting those people. QAnon followers were prominent and appeared to be at least a plurality if not a majority of the participants. The people filming themselves in Nancy Pelosi's office were prominent neo-nazis or YouTube provocateurs (Fuentes and BakedAlasaka).
A few thousand people on the capitol overwhelmed a police force that was at least partially sympathetic and was certainly understaffed, in the alternate reality where the opposition to Trump were anti-democratic in the same way they would overwhelm any force arrayed against them in a similar way much more easily through sheer quantity, but they don't hold those views or endorse those methods.
Roughly 1/3rd of voters thing the presidential election was fraudulent, but closer to 1/5th think Trump really won according to Morning Consult, some of this is just facing the fact that the US has always been a bit of a low-trust/conspiratorial society. Some of what is going on is certainly better reporting on what is really happening - things that have actually always happened. Some of what is happening is just good old fashioned bad leadership!
One side does not want to hear the other side's version. Communication did not happen because:
1) cancel culture
2) snowflake culture
3) main stream media bias, completely shutting down one side, and lying often
There has been a huge decline in how people are able to deal with uncomfortable conversations, so it's not surprising there is widespread confusion and frustration.
We're all somewhat guilty of sometimes not communicating perfectly, but which culture over the past four years promoted censorship? which culture promoted shutting people up and demonizing them? We will see these times very differently in the near future, I think.
edit: and of course this gets downvoted lol. When are we ever going to at least start listening without visceral emotional reactions, I wonder.
There has been a huge decline in how people are able to deal with uncomfortable conversations, so it's not surprising there is widespread confusion and frustration.
We're all somewhat guilty of sometimes not communicating perfectly, but which culture over the past four years promoted censorship? which culture promoted shutting people up and demonizing them? We will see these times very differently in the near future, I think.
edit: and of course this gets downvoted lol. When are we ever going to at least start listening without visceral emotional reactions, I wonder.
Maybe Trump can swear in at Mar-a-Lago as government/president in exile.
The defining characteristic of Trump and Brexit is the gradual realisation that you can basically say or do anything and if you go far enough it'll stick.
Social media censorship has pushed the right-wing to go to alternate sources for information. For example, after extensive censorship and harassments on reddit, the Donald sub simply created their own separate website, thedonald.win, and now it is ranked at #430 for traffic rank in USA by Alexa. That's a huge website considering it was just a sub on reddit at one point.
I think this is a valid point that no one wants to hear. I've argued from the beginning that closing our eyes and ears to the problem isn't an effective solution. Banning them from Reddit simply whisked them away to an even stronger self-reinforcing bubble.
It's a powerful bubble, too. I checked in on thedonald.win at Thanksgiving, and they had a meme aimed directly at me: "So glad you could come take some time off during your busy day to come make fun of us. You must be a real piece of work" or something along those lines. I burst out laughing.
But the other side of it is valid too: People say that there's no point in debating with folks who are "True Believers," since it merely gives them credibility and legitimacy. It's valid; I just don't personally buy that. The way to change someone's mind is to try to see things from their point of view, and really walk in their shoes, i.e. allow yourself the possibility of you changing your mind. At that point, it seems like both people are in the right mental space to be willing to change.
Tough problem all around. I'm not sure there's any effective solutions, so maybe both sides banning each other and enjoying their respective bubbles is the best we can hope for, given human nature. I just try to take a positive view.
The country will likely settle down in a few months, so this too shall pass. It raises question marks about the next cycle, but at least it's four years away.
It's a powerful bubble, too. I checked in on thedonald.win at Thanksgiving, and they had a meme aimed directly at me: "So glad you could come take some time off during your busy day to come make fun of us. You must be a real piece of work" or something along those lines. I burst out laughing.
But the other side of it is valid too: People say that there's no point in debating with folks who are "True Believers," since it merely gives them credibility and legitimacy. It's valid; I just don't personally buy that. The way to change someone's mind is to try to see things from their point of view, and really walk in their shoes, i.e. allow yourself the possibility of you changing your mind. At that point, it seems like both people are in the right mental space to be willing to change.
Tough problem all around. I'm not sure there's any effective solutions, so maybe both sides banning each other and enjoying their respective bubbles is the best we can hope for, given human nature. I just try to take a positive view.
The country will likely settle down in a few months, so this too shall pass. It raises question marks about the next cycle, but at least it's four years away.
"Banning them from Reddit simply whisked them away to an even stronger self-reinforcing bubble."
Reddit might be a valid example of this since the forums in question are largely closed communities, denying them one forum moved them en-mass to another. On other platforms like Facebook and Twitter the ecosystem is different, de-platforming works! In the grand scheme of things the traffic at TheDonald.win just isn't very many American voters.
Reddit might be a valid example of this since the forums in question are largely closed communities, denying them one forum moved them en-mass to another. On other platforms like Facebook and Twitter the ecosystem is different, de-platforming works! In the grand scheme of things the traffic at TheDonald.win just isn't very many American voters.
[deleted]
Yup, that's why I left reddit and now read/post somewhat regularly on thedonald.win. The last straw for me was when I was banned from a few subs on reddit. People on reddit don't want to have a debate. They just want confirmation bias to be reinforced.
Also, there will be no unity. Everyone on the right-wing is doubling-down to oppose anything Biden plans on doing.
This Jan 6th march was actually planned weeks prior and many people were calling "for every able bodied man" to go to DC for the march.
Many more are planned.
Also, there will be no unity. Everyone on the right-wing is doubling-down to oppose anything Biden plans on doing.
This Jan 6th march was actually planned weeks prior and many people were calling "for every able bodied man" to go to DC for the march.
Many more are planned.
You've left out the fact that The_Donald was banned from reddit for repeatedly and egregiously breaking site wide rules on harassment, brigading, and issuing death threats. Despite the mods efforts to keep it clean the subreddit was a cesspit that was only getting more extreme.
I don't agree with other subreddits automatically banning people based on post history, but I can see why the subreddit was banned, along with the left leaning subreddit chapotraphouse which engaged in similar behaviour.
I don't agree with other subreddits automatically banning people based on post history, but I can see why the subreddit was banned, along with the left leaning subreddit chapotraphouse which engaged in similar behaviour.
> that was only getting more extreme
Even disregarding any content that may or may not have been on the subreddit, the ban happened (four?) months after the subreddit's mods had already locked it down and everyone had migrated to thedonald.win. The ban didn't actually have a purpose by the time they did it, so that reason was just an excuse to get rid of content they didn't like.
Even disregarding any content that may or may not have been on the subreddit, the ban happened (four?) months after the subreddit's mods had already locked it down and everyone had migrated to thedonald.win. The ban didn't actually have a purpose by the time they did it, so that reason was just an excuse to get rid of content they didn't like.
I kept a fairly close eye on /r/The_Donald, specifically looking for signs of that behavior. Personally, I didn't see any. They pretty much kept to themselves, at least for the last year or so. That doesn't mean there wasn't any, but they had a far higher bar to clear than other subs. It also seemed like quite a coincidence that they were banned just before the crucial period leading up to the election.
You say "issuing death threats" like it was mandated by the mods. As far as I could tell, the mods were doing what they could to keep everybody contained within their zone. And the premise of Reddit is that anybody can create their zone; if you don't like it, you don't have to view it.
My point is, the counterargument that they were banned due to bad behavior seems to be slightly misleading. Every sub has bad behavior, and I know for a fact (because I saw it!) that the mods were clamping down hard on anything remotely like what you mention. The community was downvoting such comments too.
along with the left leaning subreddit chapotraphouse which engaged in similar behaviour
Can you be more specific? /r/LateStageCapitalism is still up, and they seem to "issue death threats" just as frequently. For example, they frequently reference guillotines while gesturing towards the rich.
You say "issuing death threats" like it was mandated by the mods. As far as I could tell, the mods were doing what they could to keep everybody contained within their zone. And the premise of Reddit is that anybody can create their zone; if you don't like it, you don't have to view it.
My point is, the counterargument that they were banned due to bad behavior seems to be slightly misleading. Every sub has bad behavior, and I know for a fact (because I saw it!) that the mods were clamping down hard on anything remotely like what you mention. The community was downvoting such comments too.
along with the left leaning subreddit chapotraphouse which engaged in similar behaviour
Can you be more specific? /r/LateStageCapitalism is still up, and they seem to "issue death threats" just as frequently. For example, they frequently reference guillotines while gesturing towards the rich.
Are they different realities or different people with different wants and needs?
Some people don't want Biden as president. That's their opinion and they have every right to protest. Regardless of what their opinion is though, everyone should agree that this particular behavior is unacceptable. Unfortunately, we could not come to an agreement on that just this summer, and this is the natural end result of a country where large swaths of the population are unwilling to call out political violence when 'their side' are the ones committing it.
At this point, even Trump telling people to stop (which, to his credit, he has) will not help, in the same way that democrats telling Antifa to stop will not help (I mean Biden has asked them to stop for months now, and they're still launching fireworks at the courthouse in Portland to the point the mayor is now begging for federal help).
Political violence has been normalized by the media (both social and not) to the point where, even popular politicians who disagree with the mob will become its victims.
The scary part is that some people perpetuated all this polarization and rage for money.
At this point, even Trump telling people to stop (which, to his credit, he has) will not help, in the same way that democrats telling Antifa to stop will not help (I mean Biden has asked them to stop for months now, and they're still launching fireworks at the courthouse in Portland to the point the mayor is now begging for federal help).
Political violence has been normalized by the media (both social and not) to the point where, even popular politicians who disagree with the mob will become its victims.
The scary part is that some people perpetuated all this polarization and rage for money.
Having a trustworthy election process might go a long way (voter ID, regular verification when doubts arise etc.).
As a European I find the images from Georgia's vote counting absolutely astonishing.
As a European I find the images from Georgia's vote counting absolutely astonishing.
Don't confuse people saying a process is untrustworthy, with the process being untrustworthy.
Despite claims of massive voter/election fraud and massive incentive to find it, no credible law enforcement or media agency has been able to prove it at a scale that matters. Maybe a couple hundred fraudulent votes have been proven across the country.
There is just no credible evidence
Despite claims of massive voter/election fraud and massive incentive to find it, no credible law enforcement or media agency has been able to prove it at a scale that matters. Maybe a couple hundred fraudulent votes have been proven across the country.
There is just no credible evidence
Also no evidence that any fraud would be in favor of Biden and not Trump.
Where I live we had a reelection becouse 18 absentee votes where counted even thought they were too late and invalid out of 100 000 votes.
I could not believe my eyes when I read up to how the US voting system works. No IDs etc ... and recommencing counting after observers are sent home like in Atlanta. I mean it seems like a willy nilly "whatever" system.
I could not believe my eyes when I read up to how the US voting system works. No IDs etc ... and recommencing counting after observers are sent home like in Atlanta. I mean it seems like a willy nilly "whatever" system.
It’s incredible we don’t have cameras recording every step of the counting process.
We got there with brazen falsehoods that don't get punished in the marketplace of ideas, or at the polls, or at the gallows.
As it turns out, truth is a thing beyond price - which is to say, it is worthless.
As it turns out, truth is a thing beyond price - which is to say, it is worthless.
I feel obligated to respond. Accurate information ( research, analysis and so on ) is out there though it usually you have to pay good money for it. "Free" news", as it were, is basically whatever brings attention ( which FB proved oh so very well ).
Truth is not worthless. Quite the contrary. Truth is expensive. But a fair chunk of the population subsisted on a rather limited news diet.
Truth is not worthless. Quite the contrary. Truth is expensive. But a fair chunk of the population subsisted on a rather limited news diet.
The reflexive "both-sides"-ism needs to stop. One chunk of the population is (mostly) tethered to reality and the other chunk has descended into insane, delusional, conspiratorial rabbit holes. The two "realities" are not equally valid.
This has been America from the beginning. The few have carried the many. Before this was not a major issue because the selection of people on radio or TV to curated to some degree. Now with Social Media, every idiot has a voice and idiots are drowned to other idiots.
[deleted]
Well both sides won't admit that they're not totally right, including you. Your question implies that you're 100% right and the opposition is 100% wrong.
I've seen compelling evidence on 4chan to make me believe that there was some shadiness going on in this election, perhaps moreso than normal. However, even I can admit that it does not appear to rise to the level of systemic voter fraud that I would need to call this election a "sham", nor does it appear systemic by any measure.
Can you see the difference between "everyone I don't agree with is 100% incorrect and racist" and my statement? Can you see how claiming intelligent working people are "in another reality" might be divisive to the people you're (falsely) claiming to want to meet halfway?
It goes both ways too - the right still won't admit that climate change is a thing to be combated even though that it is facially obvious to anyone that climate change has at least some negative effects.
I've seen compelling evidence on 4chan to make me believe that there was some shadiness going on in this election, perhaps moreso than normal. However, even I can admit that it does not appear to rise to the level of systemic voter fraud that I would need to call this election a "sham", nor does it appear systemic by any measure.
Can you see the difference between "everyone I don't agree with is 100% incorrect and racist" and my statement? Can you see how claiming intelligent working people are "in another reality" might be divisive to the people you're (falsely) claiming to want to meet halfway?
It goes both ways too - the right still won't admit that climate change is a thing to be combated even though that it is facially obvious to anyone that climate change has at least some negative effects.
"Democracy is a system in which parties lose elections"
- Przeworski
In other words, the core concept of democracy isn't the elections or any of the other trappings, it's the fact that it's possible for one group to lose power, transition to another group and retain the possibility to transition back in a subsequent election to the original group.
- Przeworski
In other words, the core concept of democracy isn't the elections or any of the other trappings, it's the fact that it's possible for one group to lose power, transition to another group and retain the possibility to transition back in a subsequent election to the original group.
On that note, the Pa. State Senate Republicans are just refusing to swear in their new democratic colleagues.
I Can't wait for this attitude to inevitably cross the pond.
I Can't wait for this attitude to inevitably cross the pond.
This is an artifact of first past the post electoral systems, which reward polarization. You can't demonize the other parties if there's more than one to choose from and your governments are coalitions that may require you to genuinely work together next time.
Here's a former PA lawmaker, nearly elected to US congress, who may have been part of the group that breached the capitol:
https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1346938310359396354
https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1346938310359396354
I find it hard to believe that that would even work in most EU countries.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2385 - this details the penalty for attempts to overthrow the government of the USA.
The police in the capital building were on video shaking these "protesters" hands.
Here are two examples of this:
https://mobile.twitter.com/bubbaprog/status/1346920198461419...
https://mobile.twitter.com/cevansavenger/status/134692092431...
https://mobile.twitter.com/bubbaprog/status/1346920198461419...
https://mobile.twitter.com/cevansavenger/status/134692092431...
If you look at the very end of the second video, you can see that the camera pans behind the cameraman and shows a bunch of people trespassing beyond the barricades. The position the police were defending was already compromised.
I was thinking the same thing, but then, what's the reasoning behind moving the barricades out of the way? "There are too many protestors, we need to help them move the barricades" doesn't make sense. They then turn their backs on the protestors and casually walk towards the capitol.
More surprising is that this protest wasn't a "flash mob" - it was planned and known about publicly for weeks - even promoted by the president. Why were they so unprepared?
Certainly possible that the explanation was "sheer incompetence" in both cases.
More surprising is that this protest wasn't a "flash mob" - it was planned and known about publicly for weeks - even promoted by the president. Why were they so unprepared?
Certainly possible that the explanation was "sheer incompetence" in both cases.
They let them in; there are videos of them opening the cordons around the building.
Some cops were either in on it, or at least sympathetic. They need to be dragged before Congress next month to answer for their behavior, assuming the republic survives.
https://mobile.twitter.com/sugaspov/status/13469199432380006...
Some cops were either in on it, or at least sympathetic. They need to be dragged before Congress next month to answer for their behavior, assuming the republic survives.
https://mobile.twitter.com/sugaspov/status/13469199432380006...
Anyone can visit Capitol Hill (I did when I visited Washington DC a couple of years ago). It’s not a building with turrets and armed guards all around it. It’s a symbol of democracy, so it’s intentionally designed that way.
I don’t see how what you are saying has anything to do with what happened yesterday.
That videos shows people being let in to where a bunch of people already are.
I’m not sure I see anything wrong here?
Is this just crowd flow control in action?
I’m not sure I see anything wrong here?
Is this just crowd flow control in action?
Given what happened today, it’s clear that this action was either malicious or incompetent. There is no possible way to justify their actions as “crowd control” given that they totally lost control of the crowd and let them riot throughout the capital building. Tear gassing the inside of your own legislature is pretty high on the “we fucked up” scale.
What makes it particularly unforgivable is that all of this was predictable. Both respectable commentators and shadier internet boards have been talking about this for weeks. For the same city that was ready to cover every step of the Jefferson memorial with armored troops at the hint of a BLM protest to be caught flat footed by the most predictable violence in the past year is inexcusable. Heads need to (metaphorically) roll.
What makes it particularly unforgivable is that all of this was predictable. Both respectable commentators and shadier internet boards have been talking about this for weeks. For the same city that was ready to cover every step of the Jefferson memorial with armored troops at the hint of a BLM protest to be caught flat footed by the most predictable violence in the past year is inexcusable. Heads need to (metaphorically) roll.
Oh, so because some people are already there, they get to just abandon the idea behind their job? What juvenile take on responsibility.
I think the comment you are replying to is saying that the area the cops let those people into was either already over run and they were moving to a different place to keep people out. Or that it was area the people were allowed to be in, hence the other non cops in the area and so it’s not a problem that they were let it. Not that the cops were just abandoning there job and letting people into an area they shouldn’t have.
I have no context for where this is and if it’s true but I think you are misrepresenting the above comment.
I have no context for where this is and if it’s true but I think you are misrepresenting the above comment.
This is the perimeter barricade around the capitol building. Today, this was a do-not-cross line for anyone not working in the building... or it was supposed to be.
Six policeman are unlikely to be able to hold a crowd like that back. They were probably told to fall back to concentrate their forces elsewhere. Removing the barriers prevents injury to the crowd.
The Capitol Police seemed to be very ill prepared to deal with events today, which is quite sad given that the protest at least was no surprise.
The Capitol Police seemed to be very ill prepared to deal with events today, which is quite sad given that the protest at least was no surprise.
My instincts say they were falling back/giving up their positions, you don't want to escalate with such a large mob, they would surge you and you'd end up dead.
Same with the cops posing for selfies with the protesters, IMO they had to pretend to be friendly because otherwise it'll turn the mob against them. And they (the cops) are outnumbered.
Same with the cops posing for selfies with the protesters, IMO they had to pretend to be friendly because otherwise it'll turn the mob against them. And they (the cops) are outnumbered.
They also took selfies with them. The video can be found in this archive if it's been taken down: https://www.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/comments/krx449/megathr...
Which is surely a strong sign it's time to start arresting Police as accessories to terrorism.
How can things get better unless that happens?
How can things get better unless that happens?
This has historical precedent. The far-right in the Weimar republic were treated far more softly than the communists were. The complicit behaviour of the authorities definitely played favourites and can probably be partially blamed for what happened.
Just because someone's wearing a police uniform doesn't meant they are cops. Everyone just believed they were cops.
Holy smokes so Trump should get 20 years for organising this? Or is he exempt?
Should and will are different questions. He also may be able to pardon himself depending on whose interpretation of the law you believe.
If a prosecution is possible it will be up to Biden as to what to do. At very least I think everything his administration did should be carefully investigated, documented, and put in a museum as a warning.
If he is pardoned he will probably be at war in the state of New York for the rest of his life.
If a prosecution is possible it will be up to Biden as to what to do. At very least I think everything his administration did should be carefully investigated, documented, and put in a museum as a warning.
If he is pardoned he will probably be at war in the state of New York for the rest of his life.
> How many injuries to American democracy can my Republican Party tolerate, excuse and champion? It is elementary to have to say so, but for democracy to work one side must be prepared to accept defeat. If the only acceptable outcome is for your side to win, and a loser simply refuses to lose, then America is imperiled. — Jeff Flake
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/06/opinion/jeff-flake-trump-...
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/06/opinion/jeff-flake-trump-...
It's an interesting point. One thing I've noticed is that both sides increasingly believe that each election poses an existential risk to their side.
Currently you see many conservatives repeating the meme that losing the Senate means a Republican will never win the White House again. The belief being that Democrats will change voting laws, open borders and amnesty to Dem-leaning immigrants, and possibly even pack the Supreme Court and add DC and Puerto Rico as new states.
On the flip-side, similar sentiments were often expressed on the left of Trump heralding the end of American democracy. Republicans in power would permanently end fair elections through a combination of foreign election interference, gerry-pandering, dark corporate money, and voter suppression.
Disregarding whatever merits these views have, the fact that they're widely held by a significant chunk of the citizenry creates a dangerous equilibrium. Like you say, in a healthy democracy the losing side focuses its energy on winning the next election.
But if you think the other side's gonna use dirty tricks once in power, there is no next election to win. So you go all out it to stop the other side, and start looking for dirty tricks of your own. Now you've justified your opponents' bad opinion of you, and given them even more reason to win by any means unnecessary.
Currently you see many conservatives repeating the meme that losing the Senate means a Republican will never win the White House again. The belief being that Democrats will change voting laws, open borders and amnesty to Dem-leaning immigrants, and possibly even pack the Supreme Court and add DC and Puerto Rico as new states.
On the flip-side, similar sentiments were often expressed on the left of Trump heralding the end of American democracy. Republicans in power would permanently end fair elections through a combination of foreign election interference, gerry-pandering, dark corporate money, and voter suppression.
Disregarding whatever merits these views have, the fact that they're widely held by a significant chunk of the citizenry creates a dangerous equilibrium. Like you say, in a healthy democracy the losing side focuses its energy on winning the next election.
But if you think the other side's gonna use dirty tricks once in power, there is no next election to win. So you go all out it to stop the other side, and start looking for dirty tricks of your own. Now you've justified your opponents' bad opinion of you, and given them even more reason to win by any means unnecessary.
> The belief being that Democrats will change voting laws, open borders and amnesty to Dem-leaning immigrants, and possibly even pack the Supreme Court and add DC and Puerto Rico as new states.
I like how the possibility of respecting the 2020 status referendum in Puerto Rico instead of continuing to have the island governed by a national government in which they have no vote is considered on the more extreme end of that list.
I like how the possibility of respecting the 2020 status referendum in Puerto Rico instead of continuing to have the island governed by a national government in which they have no vote is considered on the more extreme end of that list.
I would say the more relevant consideration is whether the existing American states want Puerto Rico to formally join the Union.
Puerto Rico may want statehood, but Turkey also wants to join the EU. In both cases the decision lies in DC or Brussels, not San Juan or Ankara. Puerto Rico may be a protectorate, but I don't think that formally entitles them to Union membership. That being said, if the US refuses to grant them statehood, they should be free to seek sovereignty as an independent nation.
All that aside, my rough estimate is that 90% of the Continental US interest in PR statehood is motivated by political calculus in the Senate and Electoral College. If PR was a red state instead of solid blue, I'd sincerely doubt you'd see statehood regularly discussed at the top of /r/politics.
Puerto Rico may want statehood, but Turkey also wants to join the EU. In both cases the decision lies in DC or Brussels, not San Juan or Ankara. Puerto Rico may be a protectorate, but I don't think that formally entitles them to Union membership. That being said, if the US refuses to grant them statehood, they should be free to seek sovereignty as an independent nation.
All that aside, my rough estimate is that 90% of the Continental US interest in PR statehood is motivated by political calculus in the Senate and Electoral College. If PR was a red state instead of solid blue, I'd sincerely doubt you'd see statehood regularly discussed at the top of /r/politics.
> I would say the more relevant consideration is whether the existing American states want Puerto Rico to formally join the Union.
That's obviously legally dispositive, insofar as those states representatives are who votes in Congress and we are discussing a potential action of the incoming Congressional majority.
> Puerto Rico may want statehood, but Turkey also wants to join the EU.
Turkey, wasn't incorporated into the EU by conquest and then denied voting participation in Union decisionmaking.
> All that aside, my rough estimate is that 90% of the Continental US interest in PR statehood is motivated by political calculus in the Senate and Electoral College.
Probably the majority, at any rate, is political calculus (not just partisan, but also on specific policy issues; and not just the Senate/EC, as the House isn't insignificant.)
But that's always been the case with the causes for (and against) new states. (And why “continental US”, do you really think Hawai’i is an exception here?)
That's obviously legally dispositive, insofar as those states representatives are who votes in Congress and we are discussing a potential action of the incoming Congressional majority.
> Puerto Rico may want statehood, but Turkey also wants to join the EU.
Turkey, wasn't incorporated into the EU by conquest and then denied voting participation in Union decisionmaking.
> All that aside, my rough estimate is that 90% of the Continental US interest in PR statehood is motivated by political calculus in the Senate and Electoral College.
Probably the majority, at any rate, is political calculus (not just partisan, but also on specific policy issues; and not just the Senate/EC, as the House isn't insignificant.)
But that's always been the case with the causes for (and against) new states. (And why “continental US”, do you really think Hawai’i is an exception here?)
I think that the difference is that Puerto Rico is subject to US laws but Turkey is not subject to EU laws.
> All that aside, my rough estimate is that 90% of the Continental US interest in PR statehood is motivated by political calculus in the Senate and Electoral College. If PR was a red state instead of solid blue, I'd sincerely doubt you'd see statehood regularly discussed at the top of /r/politics.
Probably, but that's also been the case for basically every state ever admitted to the union. Remember when the US used to consider whether a state was slave for free before admission?
Even the statehood of Hawaii was politically charged. People genuinely feared the kind of people Hawaiian would send as representatives. Including, but not limited to Communists and anti-segregationists.
Alaska was opposed on the grounds that it would be a welfare state and that it would add a bunch of democrats to Congress.
Probably, but that's also been the case for basically every state ever admitted to the union. Remember when the US used to consider whether a state was slave for free before admission?
Even the statehood of Hawaii was politically charged. People genuinely feared the kind of people Hawaiian would send as representatives. Including, but not limited to Communists and anti-segregationists.
Alaska was opposed on the grounds that it would be a welfare state and that it would add a bunch of democrats to Congress.
> respecting the 2020 status referendum in Puerto Rico
And the 2017 referendum. And the 2012 referendum.
Three referendums in a decade all advocating for statehood ought to be a pretty clear sign that there is desire for statehood...
And the 2017 referendum. And the 2012 referendum.
Three referendums in a decade all advocating for statehood ought to be a pretty clear sign that there is desire for statehood...
The 2017 referendum was boycotted by opponents of statehood (for various reasons to do with the wording of the referendum question and the way it tried to slant the options) and had something like 23% turnout, so citing it as an expression of popular will is a bit weird.
The 2012 referendum also had the statehood question effectively boycotted by many people who favored keeping the current status, because selecting "keep the current status" wasn't an option on that question (it was a separate question altogether, where it got 46% of the overall vote). So statehood got something like 61% of the votes of people who voted on the statehood-specific question at all, but only ~46% of the votes cast in the referendum; representing that as a "yes for statehood" is also pretty weird, since that's about the same number of votes that "keep the current status" got, with the remainder presumably favoring one of the other "more-independence" options.
2020 is different and new: it's the first Puerto Rico referendum I have seen where there was a sanely worded "state: yes or no?" question that actually got a majority voting for the "state" option (52.5% or so), with something resembling sane turnout (~55%).
So yes, respecting this is probably a good idea. "Respecting" the 2012 or 2017 results by making Puerto Rico a state would not have made any sense.
Edit: Now that I have read https://senado.pr.gov/Legislations/ps1467-20.pdf page 31 lines 6-15, which define the "no" answer to mean a specific course of action which is not just "don't become a state", I am less happy with this referendum. Now we have to guess at how many people knew what the "no" was defined to mean and voted for what they perceived as the lesser of two evils based on that....
The 2012 referendum also had the statehood question effectively boycotted by many people who favored keeping the current status, because selecting "keep the current status" wasn't an option on that question (it was a separate question altogether, where it got 46% of the overall vote). So statehood got something like 61% of the votes of people who voted on the statehood-specific question at all, but only ~46% of the votes cast in the referendum; representing that as a "yes for statehood" is also pretty weird, since that's about the same number of votes that "keep the current status" got, with the remainder presumably favoring one of the other "more-independence" options.
2020 is different and new: it's the first Puerto Rico referendum I have seen where there was a sanely worded "state: yes or no?" question that actually got a majority voting for the "state" option (52.5% or so), with something resembling sane turnout (~55%).
So yes, respecting this is probably a good idea. "Respecting" the 2012 or 2017 results by making Puerto Rico a state would not have made any sense.
Edit: Now that I have read https://senado.pr.gov/Legislations/ps1467-20.pdf page 31 lines 6-15, which define the "no" answer to mean a specific course of action which is not just "don't become a state", I am less happy with this referendum. Now we have to guess at how many people knew what the "no" was defined to mean and voted for what they perceived as the lesser of two evils based on that....
> 2020 is different and new: it's the first Puerto Rico referendum I have seen where there was a sanely worded "state: yes or no?" question
As I understand it in this referendum "yes" referred to "become a state" while "no" referred to "become independent", with no option for "keep the status quo".
The best thing to do would probably a referendum with a ranked/approval voting between all three options.
As I understand it in this referendum "yes" referred to "become a state" while "no" referred to "become independent", with no option for "keep the status quo".
The best thing to do would probably a referendum with a ranked/approval voting between all three options.
> I understand it in this referendum “yes” referred to “become a state” while “no” referred to “become independent”, with no option for “keep the status quo”.
You understand incorrectly. The question asked was:
“Should Puerto Rico be admitted immediately into the Union as a State? ( ) Yes ( ) No”
You understand incorrectly. The question asked was:
“Should Puerto Rico be admitted immediately into the Union as a State? ( ) Yes ( ) No”
It's a little weird, now that I looked into this more deeply, because while that's what the referendum question said on the ballot, the law that put it there is https://senado.pr.gov/Legislations/ps1467-20.pdf and defines the "yes" and "no" answers to have the following meanings, respectively (page 31, lines 6-15, translation from Spanish mine):
- Yes: I demand that the Federal Government immediately recognize the equality of my rights and responsibilities as an American citizen with statehood in permanent union with all the states of the Union.
- No: I reject permanent union with statehood and demand that the Federal Government immediately recognize the sovereignty of Puerto Rico separate from the United States of America with a "Treaty of Independence in Free Association" or with "Total Independence".
Notably, that excludes the status quo as an option. The part right after that says:
- Yes: I demand that the Federal Government immediately recognize the equality of my rights and responsibilities as an American citizen with statehood in permanent union with all the states of the Union.
- No: I reject permanent union with statehood and demand that the Federal Government immediately recognize the sovereignty of Puerto Rico separate from the United States of America with a "Treaty of Independence in Free Association" or with "Total Independence".
Notably, that excludes the status quo as an option. The part right after that says:
In case the statehood "No" ends up as the majority choice, you must
immediately start a process of transition to recognize the sovereignty
of Puerto Rico separate from the United States of America with a
"Treaty of Independence in Free Association" or with "Total
Independence", following the description in this law.
underhanded and quite unfortunate.
Sadly, this doesn't seem to be uncommon. In one city-level referendum I am personally familiar with, both sides of the referendum submitted an argument to be put into the election materials. The "Yes" side (loosen a safety regulation) drastically misrepresented the status quo, implying that there was no safety regulation to begin with, and that their referendum would create it. But in reality, the "Yes" vote would loosen an existing regulation.
Sadly, this doesn't seem to be uncommon. In one city-level referendum I am personally familiar with, both sides of the referendum submitted an argument to be put into the election materials. The "Yes" side (loosen a safety regulation) drastically misrepresented the status quo, implying that there was no safety regulation to begin with, and that their referendum would create it. But in reality, the "Yes" vote would loosen an existing regulation.
I sort of agree that the 2012 and 2017 referendums were procedurally deficient and don't clearly indicate a preference for statehood, but they are sufficient to indicate that Congress should at least seriously consider the prospect, pending Puerto Rico confirming it in a further referendum (which they did in 2020).
I agree, in a world in which Congress actually performs its constitutional and moral duties (including little things like writing legislation, instead of just delegating more power to the executive branch). I wish we lived in that world...
52% is nowhere near large enough majority for a decision that can never be reverted under any circumstance short of war.
It's not really Puerto Rico's decision, of course; the referendum is non-binding. It's Congress's decision, in the end, though officially adding Puerto Rico as a state against the wishes of a _majority_ of its citizens would be quite the odd thing to do, hence the referenda to see where things stand.
> 52% is nowhere near large enough majority for a decision that can never be reverted under any circumstance short of war.
How small of a minority should be granted the power to deny the majority a say in their own national government?
How small of a minority should be granted the power to deny the majority a say in their own national government?
The answer varies. For example, in the US, depending on what you are trying to accomplish it ranges somewhere among "half of the population", "that one guy at the FCC who writes the policy", and "1/3 of either house of Congress or 1/4 of the state legislatures", right?
> and add DC and Puerto Rico as new states
Is there a good argument against this? Apart from “but my side will lose power”.
Is there a good argument against this? Apart from “but my side will lose power”.
For DC, there's an arguments about a state being able to hold the federal government hostage, which is the reason why a federal district that is not part of any start was specified.
Given that the existence of the federal district is part of the Constitution, it's arguable that making DC a state requires a constitutional amendment.
Given that the existence of the federal district is part of the Constitution, it's arguable that making DC a state requires a constitutional amendment.
The proposals I heard would keep the district but make it much smaller, creating the new state (where the majority of people live) around it; the theory being that the constitution only requires a district not to exceed a 10 mile square. See e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DC_Admission_Act
Wouldn't it make more sense for the adjacent states to annex the now unallocated territory rather than create a tiny 50 sq. mile state which, without the important federal buildings, has less practical sovereignty than a fairly large suburb?
VA got all of its land back with the retrocession 173 years ago. MD doesn't particularly want DC back because of internal state politics reasons.
This sounds like we're halfway done, and just need to do the other half then. If Maryland doesn't want it, perhaps another state does? Hawaii, perhaps?
Only if you're wedded to the idea that DC can't be a state for some other reason.
You're 100% the way there if you're fine with DC becoming a state.
It just beta the same question: why don't you want DC to be a state? Because it takes power away from your side?
You're 100% the way there if you're fine with DC becoming a state.
It just beta the same question: why don't you want DC to be a state? Because it takes power away from your side?
The administrative region with the nation's capital in it gets preferential treatment, pretty much universally across countries and times. DC sort of gets the opposite treatment, though, which is good from that perspective but sort of sucks for the people living there, since they have limited autonomy. So I'd posit that DC, the territory, should have no residents besides the President himself; the only way I get that without forcing seven hundred thousand people to move is to change ownership of the land to some state that wants it.
The same reason it doesn't make sense to make Denver or Seattle a state; stripped of the important Federal buildings DC has literally nothing remarkable going on about it. States need actual land and resources and all that other stuff such that you could vaguely see them operating as an actual nation. As it is it'll just end up being bullied by all the other states
Just avoid the border gore and force Maryland to take the extra land, tax income, and voting population; it'll probably be enough to knock them up a House representative or two anyway.
Just avoid the border gore and force Maryland to take the extra land, tax income, and voting population; it'll probably be enough to knock them up a House representative or two anyway.
So Rhode Island shouldn't be a state? Wyoming? What are your requirements for being a State? Should NY or CA be 2 states? Why not?
States aren't allowed to secede, per Lincoln, so operating as a nation is irrelevant. (Texas is special.)
The original US required every state to have access to the ocean, so Colorado and Kansas shouldn't be states.
States aren't allowed to secede, per Lincoln, so operating as a nation is irrelevant. (Texas is special.)
The original US required every state to have access to the ocean, so Colorado and Kansas shouldn't be states.
This is a remarkable statement, because more people live in DC than in Wyoming or Vermont, and the purpose of a state is to serve its people, not its buildings or "resources".
It’s poorly worded in the comment you are replying to but “make DC residents citizens of Maryland and Virginia instead of adding a state” is a cogent argument with lots of merit.
Of course those 2 senate seats that would certainly be Democratic make this a political non-starter.
Of course those 2 senate seats that would certainly be Democratic make this a political non-starter.
There are federations whose capital is part of a state or a state itself. Did this problem occur anywhere in practice?
That's an interesting question.
In doing some research to formulate an answer, it really is quite striking that the US Constitution is the first of its kind, in that it conceives of a federation of co-equal sovereign states combined under a federal sovereign state. The Federalist Papers explicitly compare the proposed model against the then-existing models of Germany (i.e., Holy Roman Empire), Poland, Switzerland, Netherlands, and then-US. Keep in mind that none of those countries retain their same government form today.
In the Federalist Papers, the Netherlands is explicitly singled out for the problem of the domination of one state (Holland) over all the others, although my understanding of their history is that the state started out that way, so it's not a problem caused by the capital being part of Holland's territory. There are other examples I can think of single-state-dominant confederations (Germany provides a few examples!), but again, I'm hard-pressed to attribute any cause of that to the actual location of the capital.
At the end of the day, I don't think it would be a problem today. However, a lot of that also derives from having 200+ years of case law and custom firmly cementing the roles of federal and constituent state in a federal republic. In 1787, when the Constitution was written, that custom and precedent doesn't exist. When you're arguing that a federal government needs its own locus of power, independent of state authority, and a lot of people fear giving it that power, giving it a territory where no state can reasonably claim to be able to exercise state authority goes a long way to letting that locus of power be truly established.
In doing some research to formulate an answer, it really is quite striking that the US Constitution is the first of its kind, in that it conceives of a federation of co-equal sovereign states combined under a federal sovereign state. The Federalist Papers explicitly compare the proposed model against the then-existing models of Germany (i.e., Holy Roman Empire), Poland, Switzerland, Netherlands, and then-US. Keep in mind that none of those countries retain their same government form today.
In the Federalist Papers, the Netherlands is explicitly singled out for the problem of the domination of one state (Holland) over all the others, although my understanding of their history is that the state started out that way, so it's not a problem caused by the capital being part of Holland's territory. There are other examples I can think of single-state-dominant confederations (Germany provides a few examples!), but again, I'm hard-pressed to attribute any cause of that to the actual location of the capital.
At the end of the day, I don't think it would be a problem today. However, a lot of that also derives from having 200+ years of case law and custom firmly cementing the roles of federal and constituent state in a federal republic. In 1787, when the Constitution was written, that custom and precedent doesn't exist. When you're arguing that a federal government needs its own locus of power, independent of state authority, and a lot of people fear giving it that power, giving it a territory where no state can reasonably claim to be able to exercise state authority goes a long way to letting that locus of power be truly established.
DC bill will pass house soon. I think it should be the #2 priority of the senate after COVID/economy. Puerto Rico is less of an obvious one and not nearly as popular on the island as DC residents
[deleted]
>Currently you see many conservatives repeating the meme that losing the Senate means a Republican will never win the White House again. The belief being that Democrats will change voting laws, open borders and amnesty to Dem-leaning immigrants, and possibly even pack the Supreme Court and add DC and Puerto Rico as new states.
It is an open secret that they will do all of these things given the opportunity. There's probably one or two D senators in the way of that right now.
It is an open secret that they will do all of these things given the opportunity. There's probably one or two D senators in the way of that right now.
It's not a secret at all. Several democratic senators are in favor of Puerto Rico statehood. (As is the territory of Puerto Rico, but putting that aside...) Several democratic senators are in favor of immigration amnesty, usually in the form of "squatter's rights" or DREAM. Several democratic senators are in favor of less-restrictive immigration policies, essentially to reduce illegal immigration by making legal immigration easier and at capacity: Legalizing the status quo, in other words. These are all defensible policy positions on their own merits.
I'm too cynical to believe that these aren't favored in part because they would help their chances are re-election, but it's also not necessary, as a republican government and a majority of republican state legislatures could not stop the entire federal government flipping democrat.
I'm too cynical to believe that these aren't favored in part because they would help their chances are re-election, but it's also not necessary, as a republican government and a majority of republican state legislatures could not stop the entire federal government flipping democrat.
I want to understand you correctly. Do you believe that but for one or two Democratic Senators, all of these things would transpire?
Yes I do.
1. The democratic platform endorses "restructuring" (packing) of the lower courts.
2. A large number of democrats including Kamala Harris have endorsed court packing or other schemes to change the balance of the supreme court. Joe Biden refused to tell the american public what he thinks about court packing. He later promised to create a commission to study court packing.
3. Chuck Schumer has made it a priority to eliminate the legislative filibuster so they can pass laws with 51 votes instead of 60.
4. Democrats believe the senate unfairly benefits republicans. They want to make D.C. and Puerto Rico into states to give them an advantage. Some democrats want to make states out of every american territory. This would lock republicans out of the senate permanently.
They will do all of these things given the opportunity. Republicans are already pretty fucked due to demographic change, but democrats very openly want a one party state.
https://reason.com/volokh/2020/09/19/regardless-of-what-trum...
1. The democratic platform endorses "restructuring" (packing) of the lower courts.
2. A large number of democrats including Kamala Harris have endorsed court packing or other schemes to change the balance of the supreme court. Joe Biden refused to tell the american public what he thinks about court packing. He later promised to create a commission to study court packing.
3. Chuck Schumer has made it a priority to eliminate the legislative filibuster so they can pass laws with 51 votes instead of 60.
4. Democrats believe the senate unfairly benefits republicans. They want to make D.C. and Puerto Rico into states to give them an advantage. Some democrats want to make states out of every american territory. This would lock republicans out of the senate permanently.
They will do all of these things given the opportunity. Republicans are already pretty fucked due to demographic change, but democrats very openly want a one party state.
https://reason.com/volokh/2020/09/19/regardless-of-what-trum...
This uhh packing the courts thing. Isn't it what mcconnel has already done by denying all of Obama's appoints and delaying them so that they could be trump appointments instead? Especially given the odd appoints trump made like folks who'd never talked in a court before
It's highly unlikely that the US becomes a one party state, but instead, the politics of the two parties changes. The most obvious change being that the republicans stop being the party of racists? They can easily draw more votes from minority conservatives if they drop the racism
It's highly unlikely that the US becomes a one party state, but instead, the politics of the two parties changes. The most obvious change being that the republicans stop being the party of racists? They can easily draw more votes from minority conservatives if they drop the racism
Packing the court means specifically to expand the size of the court and fill it with partisan judges. Some people have been trying to redefine the term recently in order to create a false equivalency between what republicans have done and what democrats want to do.
>The most obvious change being that the republicans stop being the party of racists?
Democrats are the party of anti-white and anti-asian racists.
>The most obvious change being that the republicans stop being the party of racists?
Democrats are the party of anti-white and anti-asian racists.
I don’t see the court restructuring point in the platform, but I just read the table of contents. Can you help me find it?
https://democrats.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/08/202...
Also, my question wasn’t whether you believe that’s what the Democrats want. Of course the Democrats want it to be a one party state. Everyone wants their side to win.
My question was whether you believe if Joe Manchin was more liberal (for example) that by 2020 we would have two more states, a packed judiciary, etc. Because that is GP’s point. That this election is not an existential threat to either party.
https://democrats.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/08/202...
Also, my question wasn’t whether you believe that’s what the Democrats want. Of course the Democrats want it to be a one party state. Everyone wants their side to win.
My question was whether you believe if Joe Manchin was more liberal (for example) that by 2020 we would have two more states, a packed judiciary, etc. Because that is GP’s point. That this election is not an existential threat to either party.
https://reason.com/volokh/2020/08/20/does-the-democratic-pla...
>My question was whether you believe if Joe Manchin was more liberal (for example) that by 2020 we would have two more states, a packed judiciary, etc.
It's a simple matter of whether they have the votes to do it. All they need is a simple majority to accomplish all of the things I listed. You said it yourself - everybody wants to have a one party state, right? So who, besides Joe Manchin and perhaps Kyrsten Sinema stands in the way of adding new states, abolishing the filibuster, packing the courts, or any other part of the democrat agenda?
There are no shortage of voices for these things. Where are the voices against them?
If Joe Biden, who is supposed to be some kind of moderate, can't tell the American public whether he's for or against packing the supreme court, what does that say about the state of the democratic party?
>My question was whether you believe if Joe Manchin was more liberal (for example) that by 2020 we would have two more states, a packed judiciary, etc.
It's a simple matter of whether they have the votes to do it. All they need is a simple majority to accomplish all of the things I listed. You said it yourself - everybody wants to have a one party state, right? So who, besides Joe Manchin and perhaps Kyrsten Sinema stands in the way of adding new states, abolishing the filibuster, packing the courts, or any other part of the democrat agenda?
There are no shortage of voices for these things. Where are the voices against them?
If Joe Biden, who is supposed to be some kind of moderate, can't tell the American public whether he's for or against packing the supreme court, what does that say about the state of the democratic party?
I'm not a Democrat but I'm probably a liberal and I think it'd be swell to abolish the Senate entirely.
It's not like we would really end up with a one party Democratic state, to begin with the party isn't cohesive enough for that to be terribly meaningful, and then you'd also get explicit divisions around issues, not more and more agreement.
(abolishing the Senate would make the Federal government a lot spicier, but the Senate is much more sclerotic and ossified than it is staid)
It's not like we would really end up with a one party Democratic state, to begin with the party isn't cohesive enough for that to be terribly meaningful, and then you'd also get explicit divisions around issues, not more and more agreement.
(abolishing the Senate would make the Federal government a lot spicier, but the Senate is much more sclerotic and ossified than it is staid)
Preferring majority rule over minority rule is not "one-party". Republicans could win elections by appealing to voters instead of jerrymandering.
>Republicans could win elections by appealing to voters instead of jerrymandering.
Republicans are very popular. Maybe not quite as popular as the Democrats. Does that give the Democrats a license to take over the federal government? I don't think so. And it wouldn't matter how many votes the democrats get, all people have a right to self determination first and foremost. Living as a permanent political minority is tyranny.
Republicans are very popular. Maybe not quite as popular as the Democrats. Does that give the Democrats a license to take over the federal government? I don't think so. And it wouldn't matter how many votes the democrats get, all people have a right to self determination first and foremost. Living as a permanent political minority is tyranny.
What a patently absurd statement, especially if you consider our national history. We didn't live in a strong two-party existence until relatively recently and we still have (not enough) independent members in congress.
Political parties were quite literally decried by the founders and as we have now almost completely been polarized in a two-party system we have reached this level of disfunction.
This is unacceptable and both parties have been responsible for shutting out third-party candidates.
All people are subject to the rule of law of the land, whether you think it is just or unjust. You have the right to vote for whoever you want but you don't have a right to do whatever you want. Democrats haven't taken over the federal government. They were voted into office, just as several republicans/whigs/federalists/anti-federalists/literally whoever.
This is the process. This is the reality. This is America.
Choosing to reject both the facts and reality doesn't change this.
Political parties were quite literally decried by the founders and as we have now almost completely been polarized in a two-party system we have reached this level of disfunction.
This is unacceptable and both parties have been responsible for shutting out third-party candidates.
All people are subject to the rule of law of the land, whether you think it is just or unjust. You have the right to vote for whoever you want but you don't have a right to do whatever you want. Democrats haven't taken over the federal government. They were voted into office, just as several republicans/whigs/federalists/anti-federalists/literally whoever.
This is the process. This is the reality. This is America.
Choosing to reject both the facts and reality doesn't change this.
>All people are subject to the rule of law of the land, whether you think it is just or unjust. You have the right to vote for whoever you want but you don't have a right to do whatever you want. Democrats haven't taken over the federal government. They were voted into office, just as several republicans/whigs/federalists/anti-federalists/literally whoever.
When I talking about democrats taking over the federal government, I am talking about court packing, senate packing (by adding states), and other tactics to establish they will use to establish a permanent majority. I am not talking about the recent election.
The person I replied to seems to think that all those things are justified because the democrats are more popular than the republicans.
I have no idea what you are talking about with regard to political parties or choosing to reject facts. I assume you didn't actually read the thread so you took what I said out of context.
When I talking about democrats taking over the federal government, I am talking about court packing, senate packing (by adding states), and other tactics to establish they will use to establish a permanent majority. I am not talking about the recent election.
The person I replied to seems to think that all those things are justified because the democrats are more popular than the republicans.
I have no idea what you are talking about with regard to political parties or choosing to reject facts. I assume you didn't actually read the thread so you took what I said out of context.
Not only have those things not happened but you are the one choosing that they are wrong for your own agenda. There has been no court packing and while you may choose to believe that Puerto Rico doesn’t deserve statehood for partisan reasons i and many other reject that idea. I am not taking what you’ve said outside of context. You are quite clearly advocating not just against the rule of law but also against the democratic process. Good luck.
>Not only have those things not happened but you are the one choosing that they are wrong for your own agenda.
All of these things are pure partisan powergrabs - and many democratic commentators aren't shy about it either.
> You are quite clearly advocating not just against the rule of law but also against the democratic process.
You are quite clearly immersed in the state cult and our "sacred democracy", ignoring keep ideas like balance of power that our nation was built on.
All of these things are pure partisan powergrabs - and many democratic commentators aren't shy about it either.
> You are quite clearly advocating not just against the rule of law but also against the democratic process.
You are quite clearly immersed in the state cult and our "sacred democracy", ignoring keep ideas like balance of power that our nation was built on.
Actually it's not a pure partisan powergrab to give statehood to Puerto Rico, a territory that is more populated with American Citizens than several states (18 I believe). These people are our people and they deserve to have a voice in congress exactly as much as you or I do. This shouldn't be controversial.
As for the cult comment, the visible cult is quite literally the group who is incapable of accepting reality and I'm not going bother trying to engage with someone who is incapable of engaging in reality.
As for the cult comment, the visible cult is quite literally the group who is incapable of accepting reality and I'm not going bother trying to engage with someone who is incapable of engaging in reality.
> Does that give the Democrats a license to take over the federal government? I don't think so.
Yes, it literally does.
Both Democrat and Republican Parties have consistently agreed that it does, via the constitution and law-setting, even where it is against the best interests of most people.
You can't make this argument against Democrats, unless you are making it against the Republicans in 2017-2019. Neither of the two political parties are as yet a permanent minority.
If that does happen, such that the Democrats start to consistently get 2/3 of the vote or 2/3 of each chamber (which doesn't look likely), then the dominating Democrats will likely split into two parties.
The choice of electoral system entrenches a two-party state; but, it doesn't say that one of those two parties necessarily has to be the Republicans.
Yes, it literally does.
Both Democrat and Republican Parties have consistently agreed that it does, via the constitution and law-setting, even where it is against the best interests of most people.
You can't make this argument against Democrats, unless you are making it against the Republicans in 2017-2019. Neither of the two political parties are as yet a permanent minority.
If that does happen, such that the Democrats start to consistently get 2/3 of the vote or 2/3 of each chamber (which doesn't look likely), then the dominating Democrats will likely split into two parties.
The choice of electoral system entrenches a two-party state; but, it doesn't say that one of those two parties necessarily has to be the Republicans.
They lack the consent of the governed to make sweeping chances to our government disenfranchising 70 million+ people.
I would understand conspiracy theories when the incumbent party keeps on winning. It's easy to come to conclusion that the game is rigged in less democratic countries where the person wins over and over with 90% of the votes, or with leaders such as Putin.
But I just don't understand how losing an election that was looked over by members of your own party, and won by similar margins which you won by previously, can be this controversial. Let alone the fact that the party still did really well in all the other ballots including house and senate.
But I just don't understand how losing an election that was looked over by members of your own party, and won by similar margins which you won by previously, can be this controversial. Let alone the fact that the party still did really well in all the other ballots including house and senate.
> how losing an election that was looked over by members of your own party, and won by similar margins which you won by previously, can be this controversial.
this all stems from videos, witness statements, and statistical anomalies that suggest the election wasn't conducted properly; and the refusal of certain parts of the government to effectively examine these claims and their supporting evidence in a public and transparent manner. You've still got people claiming there was no evidence, even after videos emerged of ballot counting without the legal requirements and of people employing sleight-of-hand to remove a thumb drive from a counting location. These incidents may or may not be significant enough to change the outcome of the election but when they don't appear to be taken seriously and investigated properly, it creates the impression that some people aren't very concerned with election integrity.
this all stems from videos, witness statements, and statistical anomalies that suggest the election wasn't conducted properly; and the refusal of certain parts of the government to effectively examine these claims and their supporting evidence in a public and transparent manner. You've still got people claiming there was no evidence, even after videos emerged of ballot counting without the legal requirements and of people employing sleight-of-hand to remove a thumb drive from a counting location. These incidents may or may not be significant enough to change the outcome of the election but when they don't appear to be taken seriously and investigated properly, it creates the impression that some people aren't very concerned with election integrity.
> this all stems from videos
I can obviously not cover every single one, but just seeing a random van and claiming it's full of fake ballots doesn't make it true. In many of these states, the entire counting was livestreamed.
> witness statements
Anyone can give statements, but election fraud requires more than just hearsay.
> and statistical anomalies
Numbers are easy to play with, see p-Hacking. In the majority of the cases, if you apply the same calculations to previous elections, or hell, even red counties in this very same election, you get very similar strange looking results.
> refusal of certain parts of the government to effectively examine these claims and their supporting evidence in a public
Just because you've been told that it wasn't taken seriously doesn't make it true. Courts have gone through the evidence for 2 months and none of it went anywhere. But for some people, being proved wrong means not being taken seriously.
I can obviously not cover every single one, but just seeing a random van and claiming it's full of fake ballots doesn't make it true. In many of these states, the entire counting was livestreamed.
> witness statements
Anyone can give statements, but election fraud requires more than just hearsay.
> and statistical anomalies
Numbers are easy to play with, see p-Hacking. In the majority of the cases, if you apply the same calculations to previous elections, or hell, even red counties in this very same election, you get very similar strange looking results.
> refusal of certain parts of the government to effectively examine these claims and their supporting evidence in a public
Just because you've been told that it wasn't taken seriously doesn't make it true. Courts have gone through the evidence for 2 months and none of it went anywhere. But for some people, being proved wrong means not being taken seriously.
> I can obviously not cover every single one, but just seeing a random van and claiming it's full of fake ballots doesn't make it true. In many of these states, the entire counting was livestreamed.
I'd like to have the VA thumb drive handoff and the GA under-the-table ballot stash explained please.
> In many of these states, the entire counting was livestreamed.
Some of these videos purportedly show poll workers scanning the same ballot multiple times.
> Anyone can give statements, but election fraud requires more than just hearsay.
There are lots of sworn first-person statements, which aren't hearsay. Also fraud requires evidence of intent. Its much easier to show that serious, legitimate questions can be raised about enough ballots to sway the outcome than to prove why observers were prevented from observing.
> Numbers are easy to play with, see p-Hacking. In the majority of the cases, if you apply the same calculations to previous elections, or hell, even red counties in this very same election, you get very similar strange looking results.
Can you link me to those majority of cases? Quality of the statistical arguments varies widely and only the non persuasive arguments seem to have been responded to.
> Just because you've been told that it wasn't taken seriously doesn't make it true.
In a situation like this, demonstrating that the concerns are being taken seriously is more important than actually taking them seriously. The apparent legitimacy of the President is likely to have more of an effect on everything than who the president is, at this point. When these allegations aren't seen to be taken seriously it creates the appearance of illegitimacy, regardless of the facts.
> Courts have gone through the evidence for 2 months and none of it went anywhere.
Actually many of these cases never reached the stage of preventing evidence. And 2 months ago there hadn't been enough time to investigate and we were already being told that it had been debunked. So its not enough to do whatever they have done, it is necessary for it to be known that they have done what is correct.
> But for some people, being proved wrong means not being taken seriously.
Can you show me some of these claims "being proved wrong"? Thats a stronger claim than there not being evidence and if you could substantiate this it might help reach some people.
I'd like to have the VA thumb drive handoff and the GA under-the-table ballot stash explained please.
> In many of these states, the entire counting was livestreamed.
Some of these videos purportedly show poll workers scanning the same ballot multiple times.
> Anyone can give statements, but election fraud requires more than just hearsay.
There are lots of sworn first-person statements, which aren't hearsay. Also fraud requires evidence of intent. Its much easier to show that serious, legitimate questions can be raised about enough ballots to sway the outcome than to prove why observers were prevented from observing.
> Numbers are easy to play with, see p-Hacking. In the majority of the cases, if you apply the same calculations to previous elections, or hell, even red counties in this very same election, you get very similar strange looking results.
Can you link me to those majority of cases? Quality of the statistical arguments varies widely and only the non persuasive arguments seem to have been responded to.
> Just because you've been told that it wasn't taken seriously doesn't make it true.
In a situation like this, demonstrating that the concerns are being taken seriously is more important than actually taking them seriously. The apparent legitimacy of the President is likely to have more of an effect on everything than who the president is, at this point. When these allegations aren't seen to be taken seriously it creates the appearance of illegitimacy, regardless of the facts.
> Courts have gone through the evidence for 2 months and none of it went anywhere.
Actually many of these cases never reached the stage of preventing evidence. And 2 months ago there hadn't been enough time to investigate and we were already being told that it had been debunked. So its not enough to do whatever they have done, it is necessary for it to be known that they have done what is correct.
> But for some people, being proved wrong means not being taken seriously.
Can you show me some of these claims "being proved wrong"? Thats a stronger claim than there not being evidence and if you could substantiate this it might help reach some people.
> I'd like to have the VA thumb drive handoff and the GA under-the-table ballot stash explained please.
I can't find any information about "the VA thumb drive handoff". Do you mean this event [0] in Wisconsin? And I assume you're referring to this non-event [1], which the Georgia Secretary of State stated in a swore affidavit did not represent an opportunity for voter fraud based on continuous security camera footage.
[0] https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/nov/17/facebook-p...
[1] https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fulton-county-georgia-no-my...
I can't find any information about "the VA thumb drive handoff". Do you mean this event [0] in Wisconsin? And I assume you're referring to this non-event [1], which the Georgia Secretary of State stated in a swore affidavit did not represent an opportunity for voter fraud based on continuous security camera footage.
[0] https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/nov/17/facebook-p...
[1] https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fulton-county-georgia-no-my...
> I can't find any information about "the VA thumb drive handoff".
[0]
> And I assume you're referring to this non-event [1], which the Georgia Secretary of State stated in a swore affidavit did not represent an opportunity for voter fraud based on continuous security camera footage.
Well that's great, someone should tell the GA SOS to release the chain of custody for those ballots. If its so easy to demonstrate that the ballots (that were hidden under a table and counted after everyone else left) are legitimate, then just release that evidence instead of asking people to trust your word.
[0]https://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2020/12/04/that-is-some-handof...
[0]
> And I assume you're referring to this non-event [1], which the Georgia Secretary of State stated in a swore affidavit did not represent an opportunity for voter fraud based on continuous security camera footage.
Well that's great, someone should tell the GA SOS to release the chain of custody for those ballots. If its so easy to demonstrate that the ballots (that were hidden under a table and counted after everyone else left) are legitimate, then just release that evidence instead of asking people to trust your word.
[0]https://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2020/12/04/that-is-some-handof...
This article[1] from Fox News pretty thoroughly explains the ballots under the table in GA. It took me literally 2 minutes to find it. Did you look for such explanations yourself before asking?
You seem reasonable, and I promise I am not attacking you. I am just at a loss. I have to imagine you see that article or ones like it, but you are not satisfied by the explanation. So then what can I do to satisfy you that the claims of fraud have been addressed? What standard of proof do you need, and what guarantee do I have that you won’t shift the goalpost once I meet it?
I’m not saying you, personally, will shift the goalpost, but my discussions with those who are already convinced their is fraud is that no amount of evidence is sufficient. There will always be another “but what about.” That’s why this 11th hour demand for an audit by Sen. Cruz, Loeffler, et al is exhausting. Of course I don’t want election fraud, even if finding it means Biden loses. But after two months of courts looking into it, AG Barr refuting it, state legislatures refuting it, and more, I’d say it’s been pretty well looked at. At this point, is an audit really the difference between you feeling satisfied and not?
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fulton-county-georgia-no-my...
You seem reasonable, and I promise I am not attacking you. I am just at a loss. I have to imagine you see that article or ones like it, but you are not satisfied by the explanation. So then what can I do to satisfy you that the claims of fraud have been addressed? What standard of proof do you need, and what guarantee do I have that you won’t shift the goalpost once I meet it?
I’m not saying you, personally, will shift the goalpost, but my discussions with those who are already convinced their is fraud is that no amount of evidence is sufficient. There will always be another “but what about.” That’s why this 11th hour demand for an audit by Sen. Cruz, Loeffler, et al is exhausting. Of course I don’t want election fraud, even if finding it means Biden loses. But after two months of courts looking into it, AG Barr refuting it, state legislatures refuting it, and more, I’d say it’s been pretty well looked at. At this point, is an audit really the difference between you feeling satisfied and not?
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fulton-county-georgia-no-my...
> This article[1] from Fox News pretty thoroughly explains the ballots under the table in GA.
It doesn't really explain anything, it just reports some things people said.
> It took me literally 2 minutes to find it. Did you look for such explanations yourself before asking?
Indeed I did, and I took the further step of considering whether the allegations of fraud were responded to persuasively, and I saw they were not.
> So then what can I do to satisfy you that the claims of fraud have been addressed?
An investigator's report is the usual way of satisfying the public as to the results of an investigation.
> What standard of proof do you need, and what guarantee do I have that you won’t shift the goalpost once I meet it?
The same standard that would be applied to any other criminal investigation with similar consequences. When someone who is implicated in an activity offers an explanation, attempt to verify that explanation. Document this process. When someone makes a claim ("these are normal ballots that were removed and staged for expedited processing") attempt to verify the chain of custody on the ballots.
As far as shifting the goalposts, there isn't really a way for me to guarantee that to you. You'll just have to take the risk that you're wasting your time and update your opinion of me if/when that happens, or decline to risk your precious time proving something to a stranger on the internet. Its a personal decision, there is no right or wrong here :)
> I’m not saying you, personally, will shift the goalpost, but my discussions with those who are already convinced their is fraud is that no amount of evidence is sufficient.
I empathize and I'm certain there are people out there. Surely you would also agree that there are people out there who are goal-oriented and partisan enough that they would condone election fraud in order to replace trump?
> There will always be another “but what about.”
Thats true but if you acknowledge the possibility of having reasonable questions then you can't dismiss the reasonable questions on the basis of someone else's unreasonable questions.
> That’s why this 11th hour demand for an audit by Sen. Cruz, Loeffler, et al is exhausting.
The shit is fucking exhausting but people have been making accusations and pursuing legal remedies for 2+ months and its clear that its not exactly easy to challenge the integrity of an election regardless of the amount of evidence. We've been hearing that these allegations are "debunked" since before there was an investigation. People say there's nothing to them but they can't provide any evidence to respond to the allegations except testimony by persons who are implicated. We can't get a simple chain of custody on ~9,000 ballots that appeared from under a table in the middle of the night when no (R) observers were present, and the people there dispute the process by which the obervers were removed from the room. If someone doesn't understand that the results of an election can be changed by adding illegal/fraudulent ballots then they don't understand elections well enough.
> Of course I don’t want election fraud, even if finding it means Biden loses.
Honestly ask yourself why you care election integrity. Now consider whether election integrity can be meaningfully decoupled from the appearance of election integrity in this context.
> But after two months of courts looking into it, AG Barr refuting it, state legislatures refuting it, and more, I’d say it’s been pretty well looked at.
I mean, that's probably because you're satisfied with the outcome and you question all the allegations of improprieties. Which is fine. But have you considered whether AG Barr, some state legislatures, etc. have done anything that might alleviate the concerns of someone who feels differently? The scope of effort required to debunk something for someone who doesn't believe it is far less than the scope of effort required to debunk something for someone who does believe it. In this case, the latter standard is the one that should prevail for obvious reasons.
> https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fulton-county-georgia-no-my...
Mostly just repeats the claims of various parties without making efforts to substantiate them. We already know the people involved disagree about the details of what happened, that's why there needs to be a chain of custody for those ballots. That way we are less reliant on the word of partisans.
It doesn't really explain anything, it just reports some things people said.
> It took me literally 2 minutes to find it. Did you look for such explanations yourself before asking?
Indeed I did, and I took the further step of considering whether the allegations of fraud were responded to persuasively, and I saw they were not.
> So then what can I do to satisfy you that the claims of fraud have been addressed?
An investigator's report is the usual way of satisfying the public as to the results of an investigation.
> What standard of proof do you need, and what guarantee do I have that you won’t shift the goalpost once I meet it?
The same standard that would be applied to any other criminal investigation with similar consequences. When someone who is implicated in an activity offers an explanation, attempt to verify that explanation. Document this process. When someone makes a claim ("these are normal ballots that were removed and staged for expedited processing") attempt to verify the chain of custody on the ballots.
As far as shifting the goalposts, there isn't really a way for me to guarantee that to you. You'll just have to take the risk that you're wasting your time and update your opinion of me if/when that happens, or decline to risk your precious time proving something to a stranger on the internet. Its a personal decision, there is no right or wrong here :)
> I’m not saying you, personally, will shift the goalpost, but my discussions with those who are already convinced their is fraud is that no amount of evidence is sufficient.
I empathize and I'm certain there are people out there. Surely you would also agree that there are people out there who are goal-oriented and partisan enough that they would condone election fraud in order to replace trump?
> There will always be another “but what about.”
Thats true but if you acknowledge the possibility of having reasonable questions then you can't dismiss the reasonable questions on the basis of someone else's unreasonable questions.
> That’s why this 11th hour demand for an audit by Sen. Cruz, Loeffler, et al is exhausting.
The shit is fucking exhausting but people have been making accusations and pursuing legal remedies for 2+ months and its clear that its not exactly easy to challenge the integrity of an election regardless of the amount of evidence. We've been hearing that these allegations are "debunked" since before there was an investigation. People say there's nothing to them but they can't provide any evidence to respond to the allegations except testimony by persons who are implicated. We can't get a simple chain of custody on ~9,000 ballots that appeared from under a table in the middle of the night when no (R) observers were present, and the people there dispute the process by which the obervers were removed from the room. If someone doesn't understand that the results of an election can be changed by adding illegal/fraudulent ballots then they don't understand elections well enough.
> Of course I don’t want election fraud, even if finding it means Biden loses.
Honestly ask yourself why you care election integrity. Now consider whether election integrity can be meaningfully decoupled from the appearance of election integrity in this context.
> But after two months of courts looking into it, AG Barr refuting it, state legislatures refuting it, and more, I’d say it’s been pretty well looked at.
I mean, that's probably because you're satisfied with the outcome and you question all the allegations of improprieties. Which is fine. But have you considered whether AG Barr, some state legislatures, etc. have done anything that might alleviate the concerns of someone who feels differently? The scope of effort required to debunk something for someone who doesn't believe it is far less than the scope of effort required to debunk something for someone who does believe it. In this case, the latter standard is the one that should prevail for obvious reasons.
> https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fulton-county-georgia-no-my...
Mostly just repeats the claims of various parties without making efforts to substantiate them. We already know the people involved disagree about the details of what happened, that's why there needs to be a chain of custody for those ballots. That way we are less reliant on the word of partisans.
You should watch a documentary about flat-earthers, because you sound like one. Or a 9/11-truther. If someone says something that disagrees with your beliefs, you don't think "Maybe what I've believed so far is wrong?", you think "They're also part of the lie!".
I saw your fellow conspiracy theorists's YouTube analysis of the "thumbdrive hand-off". It's not even clear it's a thumbdrive in her hand. And the logic leap is incredible. How does this "hand-off" mean election fraud? Did you watch another video of someone on the Internet saying "It means this, it can mean this", etc, and if so, why hasn't it been investigated?
https://medium.com/curiouserinstitute/a-game-designers-analy...
I saw your fellow conspiracy theorists's YouTube analysis of the "thumbdrive hand-off". It's not even clear it's a thumbdrive in her hand. And the logic leap is incredible. How does this "hand-off" mean election fraud? Did you watch another video of someone on the Internet saying "It means this, it can mean this", etc, and if so, why hasn't it been investigated?
https://medium.com/curiouserinstitute/a-game-designers-analy...
> You should watch a documentary about flat-earthers, because you sound like one. Or a 9/11-truther. If someone says something that disagrees with your beliefs, you don't think "Maybe what I've believed so far is wrong?", you think "They're also part of the lie!".
Do you think this is a good way of persuading people to question themselves?
> I saw your fellow conspiracy theorists's YouTube analysis of the "thumbdrive hand-off".
I'm not sure I appreciate being associated with whoever but thank you for watching the video.
> It's not even clear it's a thumbdrive in her hand.
Ok, perhaps. What else was she attempting to steal from the election building?
> And the logic leap is incredible. How does this "hand-off" mean election fraud?
For some reason, votes are stored on removable storage media. There's no incredible leap of logic to understand that sneaking one of these drives out and modifying it or losing it without affecting the chain of custody or being seen would be a component of vote fraud. This appears to be that, therefore when someone asks for video evidence that suggests there might have been vote fraud, here is an example. But if you don't care about election integrity then its probably super boring anyway so don't fret yourself.
> Did you watch another video of someone on the Internet saying "It means this, it can mean this", etc, and if so, why hasn't it been investigated?
No, its pretty obvious what the logical implications are. And I don't know why it hasn't been investigated, probably because the voting system isn't even set up to defend against this type of fraud.
thanks for the link, very interesting.
Do you think this is a good way of persuading people to question themselves?
> I saw your fellow conspiracy theorists's YouTube analysis of the "thumbdrive hand-off".
I'm not sure I appreciate being associated with whoever but thank you for watching the video.
> It's not even clear it's a thumbdrive in her hand.
Ok, perhaps. What else was she attempting to steal from the election building?
> And the logic leap is incredible. How does this "hand-off" mean election fraud?
For some reason, votes are stored on removable storage media. There's no incredible leap of logic to understand that sneaking one of these drives out and modifying it or losing it without affecting the chain of custody or being seen would be a component of vote fraud. This appears to be that, therefore when someone asks for video evidence that suggests there might have been vote fraud, here is an example. But if you don't care about election integrity then its probably super boring anyway so don't fret yourself.
> Did you watch another video of someone on the Internet saying "It means this, it can mean this", etc, and if so, why hasn't it been investigated?
No, its pretty obvious what the logical implications are. And I don't know why it hasn't been investigated, probably because the voting system isn't even set up to defend against this type of fraud.
thanks for the link, very interesting.
> I'm not sure I appreciate being associated with whoever but thank you for watching the video.
If someone seriously posts "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" I'm going to associate them with 9/11 truthers.
> Ok, perhaps. What else was she attempting to steal from the election building?
You (or the allegers) are just creating a narrative that's convenient for you/them! And filling in the details. We don't even see them leave the building!
Here's another one: the lady on the left gave the other one her car keys, and the girl and guy were about to sneak off to the carpark to make out. Or, it was a bag of weed, and they're about to go to the back of the building and get high.
Did you even confirm how the votes are stored? There are boxes with United States Postal Service in the background. So surely they're counting mail ballots. There are no computers on the desks, so, it doesn't seem the results of the counted mail ballots are being stored digitally. Do these 3 look like master hackers, or is it so easy to tamper with the digital files that it's plausible anyone (including many in republican areas) could do it, but you've only "caught" these 3 doing it?
If someone seriously posts "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" I'm going to associate them with 9/11 truthers.
> Ok, perhaps. What else was she attempting to steal from the election building?
You (or the allegers) are just creating a narrative that's convenient for you/them! And filling in the details. We don't even see them leave the building!
Here's another one: the lady on the left gave the other one her car keys, and the girl and guy were about to sneak off to the carpark to make out. Or, it was a bag of weed, and they're about to go to the back of the building and get high.
Did you even confirm how the votes are stored? There are boxes with United States Postal Service in the background. So surely they're counting mail ballots. There are no computers on the desks, so, it doesn't seem the results of the counted mail ballots are being stored digitally. Do these 3 look like master hackers, or is it so easy to tamper with the digital files that it's plausible anyone (including many in republican areas) could do it, but you've only "caught" these 3 doing it?
> If someone seriously posts "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" I'm going to associate them with 9/11 truthers.
If you ask for a video that supposedly reveals something about 9/11, and someone posts a video that fulfills your request, you are not then entitled to consider the person who responded to you as "9/11 truther." That would be ridiculous.
> You (or the allegers) are just creating a narrative that's convenient for you/them! And filling in the details. We don't even see them leave the building!
What do you think it would look like for someone to violate the chain of custody of a thumb drive on camera?
> Here's another one: the lady on the left gave the other one her car keys, and the girl and guy were about to sneak off to the carpark to make out. Or, it was a bag of weed, and they're about to go to the back of the building and get high.
None of those require or suggest the behavior seen in the video.
> Did you even confirm how the votes are stored? There are boxes with United States Postal Service in the background. So surely they're counting mail ballots. There are no computers on the desks, so, it doesn't seem the results of the counted mail ballots are being stored digitally.
Actually lots of voting machines read the ballot and record the result onto digital media.
> Do these 3 look like master hackers, or is it so easy to tamper with the digital files that it's plausible anyone (including many in republican areas) could do it
In fact its so easy that up until very recently lots of mainstream orgs (like the NYT!) were sounding the alarm.
> but you've only "caught" these 3 doing it?
Well first people said there was no evidence, now you're saying there must be more evidence or this doesn't count?
If you ask for a video that supposedly reveals something about 9/11, and someone posts a video that fulfills your request, you are not then entitled to consider the person who responded to you as "9/11 truther." That would be ridiculous.
> You (or the allegers) are just creating a narrative that's convenient for you/them! And filling in the details. We don't even see them leave the building!
What do you think it would look like for someone to violate the chain of custody of a thumb drive on camera?
> Here's another one: the lady on the left gave the other one her car keys, and the girl and guy were about to sneak off to the carpark to make out. Or, it was a bag of weed, and they're about to go to the back of the building and get high.
None of those require or suggest the behavior seen in the video.
> Did you even confirm how the votes are stored? There are boxes with United States Postal Service in the background. So surely they're counting mail ballots. There are no computers on the desks, so, it doesn't seem the results of the counted mail ballots are being stored digitally.
Actually lots of voting machines read the ballot and record the result onto digital media.
> Do these 3 look like master hackers, or is it so easy to tamper with the digital files that it's plausible anyone (including many in republican areas) could do it
In fact its so easy that up until very recently lots of mainstream orgs (like the NYT!) were sounding the alarm.
> but you've only "caught" these 3 doing it?
Well first people said there was no evidence, now you're saying there must be more evidence or this doesn't count?
> None of those require or suggest the behavior seen in the video.
What! And how can you say the behaviors in the video is inconclusive proof of voter fraud!?! Or at least suggest voter fraud?!
Where's even the thumb drive? You've managed to see things from a few pixels and what commentators are saying what it is. What if I tell you, that's a bag of weed. Can you see a bag of weed? What, no? Can you see a thumbdrive? I can't!
> Actually lots of voting machines read the ballot and record the result onto digital media.
So... this lady, who looks like her job is to sit there and count mail ballots, also has access to the voting machines (which is nowhere to be seen near her in the video), and is allowed to have custody of the results for who knows how long, while she does other work? These assumptions would mean such lax security, that then sure, rampant voter fraud is possible. Next you and the entire fraud-founding Internet commenters will want to see the security procedures of the whole voting operation and that are to your satisfaction. I don't have all the facts and can't deny that maybe they are that mind-numbingly lax (in which case, as a supporter of a US government based on sanity rather than nutjob conspiracy theories, I would be worried that rampant and easy voter fraud benefiting Republicans happened), but don't you think there would have been Republican party officials who have actually reviewed said procedures and who would've said "Hey, why are you letting random people have custody of the digital results?".
What! And how can you say the behaviors in the video is inconclusive proof of voter fraud!?! Or at least suggest voter fraud?!
Where's even the thumb drive? You've managed to see things from a few pixels and what commentators are saying what it is. What if I tell you, that's a bag of weed. Can you see a bag of weed? What, no? Can you see a thumbdrive? I can't!
> Actually lots of voting machines read the ballot and record the result onto digital media.
So... this lady, who looks like her job is to sit there and count mail ballots, also has access to the voting machines (which is nowhere to be seen near her in the video), and is allowed to have custody of the results for who knows how long, while she does other work? These assumptions would mean such lax security, that then sure, rampant voter fraud is possible. Next you and the entire fraud-founding Internet commenters will want to see the security procedures of the whole voting operation and that are to your satisfaction. I don't have all the facts and can't deny that maybe they are that mind-numbingly lax (in which case, as a supporter of a US government based on sanity rather than nutjob conspiracy theories, I would be worried that rampant and easy voter fraud benefiting Republicans happened), but don't you think there would have been Republican party officials who have actually reviewed said procedures and who would've said "Hey, why are you letting random people have custody of the digital results?".
It may not be a good way of persuading people, but it seems there’s no good way of persuading you as you simply refuse to be persuaded. We could argue about the specifics all day, but I think you should ask yourself why you want it to be true. Do you seek community? Are you angry inside and need an outlet?
Here’s a video[1]. Of course from your perspective, your position makes perfect sense and isn’t extreme, and by no means am I calling you a white supremacist, but you should watch and see if you relate in any way. Please don’t dismiss it out of hand, there’s valuable lessons in it that apply to everyone, not just former white supremacists.
[1] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SSH5EY-W5oM
Here’s a video[1]. Of course from your perspective, your position makes perfect sense and isn’t extreme, and by no means am I calling you a white supremacist, but you should watch and see if you relate in any way. Please don’t dismiss it out of hand, there’s valuable lessons in it that apply to everyone, not just former white supremacists.
[1] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SSH5EY-W5oM
> It may not be a good way of persuading people, but it seems there’s no good way of persuading you as you simply refuse to be persuaded.
Have you considered pretending for a moment that my perspective is valid instead of dismissing me like this? I'm aware that we still disagree, that's because of a variety of factors including the fact that we both, as humans, suffer from cognitive biases. But assuming that I can't be reasoned with merely because you've been unable to respond to my arguments isn't getting either of us closer to understanding each other.
> We could argue about the specifics all day, but I think you should ask yourself why you want it to be true.
I don't want it to be true, I don't want any of this crap to be true, the candidates we had are horrible (not speaking ill of Professor Jorgenson, mind you). I'd prefer that there was a reasonable explanation but the problem with this where there's evidence that raises suspicions but no reasonable response is that the losing side feels disenfranchised and that's bad for the country. We want everyone to feel as though their voice was heard.
> Do you seek community?
No I have a decent social life.
> Are you angry inside and need an outlet?
No, I'm fine.
> Of course from your perspective, your position makes perfect sense and isn’t extreme,
Thanks for the video, watching it now.
Have you considered pretending for a moment that my perspective is valid instead of dismissing me like this? I'm aware that we still disagree, that's because of a variety of factors including the fact that we both, as humans, suffer from cognitive biases. But assuming that I can't be reasoned with merely because you've been unable to respond to my arguments isn't getting either of us closer to understanding each other.
> We could argue about the specifics all day, but I think you should ask yourself why you want it to be true.
I don't want it to be true, I don't want any of this crap to be true, the candidates we had are horrible (not speaking ill of Professor Jorgenson, mind you). I'd prefer that there was a reasonable explanation but the problem with this where there's evidence that raises suspicions but no reasonable response is that the losing side feels disenfranchised and that's bad for the country. We want everyone to feel as though their voice was heard.
> Do you seek community?
No I have a decent social life.
> Are you angry inside and need an outlet?
No, I'm fine.
> Of course from your perspective, your position makes perfect sense and isn’t extreme,
Thanks for the video, watching it now.
I’m sure you’ve reviewed the evidence and have come to your own conclusions, which is reasonable. I assume you trust what Trump says as he’s the biggest supporter of the election fraud allegations, but tell me if I’m wrong. My problem is I don’t trust at all what Trump says, from my perspective he doesn’t understand you can’t inject bleach, refuses to disapprove of the Proud Boys, etc. So when he says there’s election fraud, I don’t believe him.
Maybe you’re in a position where you do believe him. His rhetoric is such that if you believe him, he tries to get you to believe only him, sowing distrust in news organisations and election officials.
I think another problem is it’s very hard to disprove a negative. For example, prove that there isn’t a spy satellite orbiting earth. You can always say “well what about that other satellite, what about this area of space?”. It’s unknowable, and therefore comes down to who you trust. If you look up Trump’s factual inaccuracies so far, unless you already have, then you’ll have a clearer picture on which to base your trust.
Maybe you’re in a position where you do believe him. His rhetoric is such that if you believe him, he tries to get you to believe only him, sowing distrust in news organisations and election officials.
I think another problem is it’s very hard to disprove a negative. For example, prove that there isn’t a spy satellite orbiting earth. You can always say “well what about that other satellite, what about this area of space?”. It’s unknowable, and therefore comes down to who you trust. If you look up Trump’s factual inaccuracies so far, unless you already have, then you’ll have a clearer picture on which to base your trust.
On the same token, this guy talks about Islamic radicalization. And I can only see parallels with white radicalization in the US: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlbirlSA-dc
> Can you link me to those majority of cases?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aokNwKx7gM8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etx0k1nLn78
And this third one just shows how much of a joke some of the claims in the lawsuits are:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ua5aOFi-DKs
Like, this is basic high school level statistics they can't even get right.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aokNwKx7gM8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etx0k1nLn78
And this third one just shows how much of a joke some of the claims in the lawsuits are:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ua5aOFi-DKs
Like, this is basic high school level statistics they can't even get right.
Thanks for the links. When you said "majority" I kind of thought maybe you had an exhaustive list and had debunked at least half plus one. I've seen those and I consider the claims he is responding to to be unpersuasive.
What would you consider the most persuasive statistical proof?
I'm not convinced that "proof" is the right term but I'd like to hear the response to the claims that time-series data from election night reveals negative vote updates.
> There are lots of sworn first-person statements, which aren't hearsay.
That is flat-out not true. Hearsay refers to whether or not the witness actually witnessed the event they are referring to, or is merely recounting what someone told them about the event. Some of the "sworn first-person statements" have the person literally swearing that they heard someone say something, which is literally hearsay. I haven't combed through every piece of evidence in every case, but a lot of "sworn first-person statements" basically amounted to hearsay or other statements that could not legally be sustained as evidence.
> Actually many of these cases never reached the stage of preventing evidence.
The first set of cases did reach that stage, and were often rejected because the evidence they did present was insufficient to sustain allegations.
> In a situation like this, demonstrating that the concerns are being taken seriously is more important than actually taking them seriously. The apparent legitimacy of the President is likely to have more of an effect on everything than who the president is, at this point. When these allegations aren't seen to be taken seriously it creates the appearance of illegitimacy, regardless of the facts.
Here's the problem. The people who are alleging this conspiracy--first and foremost Trump himself--are unwilling to sustain any evidence to the contrary. The Trump campaign and affiliates have lost 62 lawsuits in the past two months (and that's not counting subsequent losses on appeal). The legal theories in the most recent lawsuits start making pro se sovereign citizen bullshit look sane. Hell, Michigan has already filed a motion to impose sanctions on the lawyers for making these claims, which is a rare step.
And where did that get us? They're calling Mike Pence a traitor for not exercising unilateral authority to miscount the electoral votes--an authority that he does not have (read the 12th Amendment for yourself; it's not a long document). For the first time in 230 years, a mob has broken into Congress to commit sedition [1] to prevent the election of the next president. Not even in 1861, when the treasonous South objected to Lincoln's presidency, did this happen.
Why? It's not because we didn't demonstrate the concerns were being taken seriously. It's because way too many people were willing to indulge a delusional conspiracy theory that was ungrounded in truth, and to pretend that frivolous lawsuits that were clearly contrary to all prior precedent fanned [2] that delusion.
[1] 18 USC §2384: If two or more persons in any State or Territory [...] conspire to [...] by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, [...] they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
The mob that broke into the Capitol is unquestionably guilty of the crime of sedition.
[2] I have read several of the lawsuits and their briefs. I actually left a detailed comment about the Texas v Pennsylvania case when it was first filed, explaining 6 different reasons for SCOTUS to toss the case that didn't even address the merits at all.
That is flat-out not true. Hearsay refers to whether or not the witness actually witnessed the event they are referring to, or is merely recounting what someone told them about the event. Some of the "sworn first-person statements" have the person literally swearing that they heard someone say something, which is literally hearsay. I haven't combed through every piece of evidence in every case, but a lot of "sworn first-person statements" basically amounted to hearsay or other statements that could not legally be sustained as evidence.
> Actually many of these cases never reached the stage of preventing evidence.
The first set of cases did reach that stage, and were often rejected because the evidence they did present was insufficient to sustain allegations.
> In a situation like this, demonstrating that the concerns are being taken seriously is more important than actually taking them seriously. The apparent legitimacy of the President is likely to have more of an effect on everything than who the president is, at this point. When these allegations aren't seen to be taken seriously it creates the appearance of illegitimacy, regardless of the facts.
Here's the problem. The people who are alleging this conspiracy--first and foremost Trump himself--are unwilling to sustain any evidence to the contrary. The Trump campaign and affiliates have lost 62 lawsuits in the past two months (and that's not counting subsequent losses on appeal). The legal theories in the most recent lawsuits start making pro se sovereign citizen bullshit look sane. Hell, Michigan has already filed a motion to impose sanctions on the lawyers for making these claims, which is a rare step.
And where did that get us? They're calling Mike Pence a traitor for not exercising unilateral authority to miscount the electoral votes--an authority that he does not have (read the 12th Amendment for yourself; it's not a long document). For the first time in 230 years, a mob has broken into Congress to commit sedition [1] to prevent the election of the next president. Not even in 1861, when the treasonous South objected to Lincoln's presidency, did this happen.
Why? It's not because we didn't demonstrate the concerns were being taken seriously. It's because way too many people were willing to indulge a delusional conspiracy theory that was ungrounded in truth, and to pretend that frivolous lawsuits that were clearly contrary to all prior precedent fanned [2] that delusion.
[1] 18 USC §2384: If two or more persons in any State or Territory [...] conspire to [...] by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, [...] they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
The mob that broke into the Capitol is unquestionably guilty of the crime of sedition.
[2] I have read several of the lawsuits and their briefs. I actually left a detailed comment about the Texas v Pennsylvania case when it was first filed, explaining 6 different reasons for SCOTUS to toss the case that didn't even address the merits at all.
> That is flat-out not true.
It actually is true that there are "lots of sworn first-person statements, which aren't hearsay." This isn't to say there are none that are hearsay.
> I haven't combed through every piece of evidence in every case, but a lot of "sworn first-person statements" basically amounted to hearsay or other statements that could not legally be sustained as evidence.
Right, and we could ignore them and talk about the ones where people testify to things that happened to them or in their presence but its much easier to respond to evidence you don't like by ignoring it and debunking "evidence" that's easy to respond to.
> The first set of cases did reach that stage
I'm not sure what you're referring to as "the first set of cases" but many of the cases were dismissed before evidence was heard. That means you can't faithfully dismiss the evidence on the basis of a dismissed court case because the court never looked at the evidence.
> The people who are alleging this conspiracy--first and foremost Trump himself--are unwilling to sustain any evidence to the contrary.
I disagree and if you could present evidence to the contrary we could perhaps resolve this.
> The Trump campaign and affiliates have lost 62 lawsuits in the past two months (and that's not counting subsequent losses on appeal).
Refer to my statement above. Most of those never even examined the evidence.
> For the first time in 230 years, a mob has broken into Congress
Its not that big of a deal, the last time a mob broke into congress was 2018.
> has broken into Congress to commit sedition
Actually they are trying (in vain) to avoid disenfranchisement. Or if you prefer not to appear to take a position on the object-level issue, its merely a "mostly peaceful protest."
> Why? It's not because we didn't demonstrate the concerns were being taken seriously.
that most certainly is why.
> It's because way too many people were willing to indulge a delusional conspiracy theory that was ungrounded in truth, and to pretend that frivolous lawsuits that were clearly contrary to all prior precedent fanned [2] that delusion.
I like how you compared the idea that people might cheat in an election to a delusion, when people cheat in elections all the time and its probably more properly considered delusional when someone insists (without evidence) that there was no fraud and all these people asserting fraud on the basis of evidence are delusional.
> If two or more persons in any State or Territory [...] conspire to [...] by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, [...] they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
Would that apply to conspiracy to violate election law?
It actually is true that there are "lots of sworn first-person statements, which aren't hearsay." This isn't to say there are none that are hearsay.
> I haven't combed through every piece of evidence in every case, but a lot of "sworn first-person statements" basically amounted to hearsay or other statements that could not legally be sustained as evidence.
Right, and we could ignore them and talk about the ones where people testify to things that happened to them or in their presence but its much easier to respond to evidence you don't like by ignoring it and debunking "evidence" that's easy to respond to.
> The first set of cases did reach that stage
I'm not sure what you're referring to as "the first set of cases" but many of the cases were dismissed before evidence was heard. That means you can't faithfully dismiss the evidence on the basis of a dismissed court case because the court never looked at the evidence.
> The people who are alleging this conspiracy--first and foremost Trump himself--are unwilling to sustain any evidence to the contrary.
I disagree and if you could present evidence to the contrary we could perhaps resolve this.
> The Trump campaign and affiliates have lost 62 lawsuits in the past two months (and that's not counting subsequent losses on appeal).
Refer to my statement above. Most of those never even examined the evidence.
> For the first time in 230 years, a mob has broken into Congress
Its not that big of a deal, the last time a mob broke into congress was 2018.
> has broken into Congress to commit sedition
Actually they are trying (in vain) to avoid disenfranchisement. Or if you prefer not to appear to take a position on the object-level issue, its merely a "mostly peaceful protest."
> Why? It's not because we didn't demonstrate the concerns were being taken seriously.
that most certainly is why.
> It's because way too many people were willing to indulge a delusional conspiracy theory that was ungrounded in truth, and to pretend that frivolous lawsuits that were clearly contrary to all prior precedent fanned [2] that delusion.
I like how you compared the idea that people might cheat in an election to a delusion, when people cheat in elections all the time and its probably more properly considered delusional when someone insists (without evidence) that there was no fraud and all these people asserting fraud on the basis of evidence are delusional.
> If two or more persons in any State or Territory [...] conspire to [...] by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, [...] they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
Would that apply to conspiracy to violate election law?
> Actually they are trying (in vain) to avoid disenfranchisement.
They broke the law. They committed sedition--I copy-pasted the actual definition of the law. It doesn't matter why they were trying to break law, they still violated the law. They ignored all proper legal avenues to take the law into their own lands. You cannot in good faith ever claim to support the rule of law if you support what they did.
Let me put it like this: if I were to kill the President, I would be a murderer. It doesn't matter if I think he's a deranged nutcase whose continued presidency would irrevocably damage the country: I would still be committing first-degree murder, and will still deserve nothing less than to suffer the full consequences of that crime.
> Would that apply to conspiracy to violate election law?
There are only 51 electoral vote certificates for the 2020 presidential election. There were only ever 51 electoral vote certificates. Some cosplayers did pretend to make electoral vote certificates to compete against, but cosplaying an electoral vote does not meet the legal requirements to create a valid electoral vote certificate. Congress's job is to count those electoral vote certificates. 3 USC §15 lays out what Congress was supposed to do yesterday. There is nothing that they did that would violate their actions.
I'm not going to respond to all of your points because my blood pressure can't take this, but I will close out with this comment: what happened yesterday is the electoral equivalent of lynching. Even if you think it is justified, it is still an extralegal attempt by a mob to execute their will, damning the due process of anyone they come across.
They broke the law. They committed sedition--I copy-pasted the actual definition of the law. It doesn't matter why they were trying to break law, they still violated the law. They ignored all proper legal avenues to take the law into their own lands. You cannot in good faith ever claim to support the rule of law if you support what they did.
Let me put it like this: if I were to kill the President, I would be a murderer. It doesn't matter if I think he's a deranged nutcase whose continued presidency would irrevocably damage the country: I would still be committing first-degree murder, and will still deserve nothing less than to suffer the full consequences of that crime.
> Would that apply to conspiracy to violate election law?
There are only 51 electoral vote certificates for the 2020 presidential election. There were only ever 51 electoral vote certificates. Some cosplayers did pretend to make electoral vote certificates to compete against, but cosplaying an electoral vote does not meet the legal requirements to create a valid electoral vote certificate. Congress's job is to count those electoral vote certificates. 3 USC §15 lays out what Congress was supposed to do yesterday. There is nothing that they did that would violate their actions.
I'm not going to respond to all of your points because my blood pressure can't take this, but I will close out with this comment: what happened yesterday is the electoral equivalent of lynching. Even if you think it is justified, it is still an extralegal attempt by a mob to execute their will, damning the due process of anyone they come across.
> They broke the law. They committed sedition--I copy-pasted the actual definition of the law. It doesn't matter why they were trying to break law, they still violated the law.
This presumes that your perspective on the alleged fraud is factually correct. If we don't presume the facts of the matter one way or the other, it looks like they may have been petitioning their government for redress.
> Let me put it like this: if I were to kill the President, I would be a murderer. It doesn't matter if I think he's a deranged nutcase whose continued presidency would irrevocably damage the country: I would still be committing first-degree murder
I think the same argument applies to vote fraud. It doesn't matter how much you hate the president (or think him incompetent, or whatever), vote fraud is vote fraud.
> Some cosplayers did pretend to make electoral vote certificates to compete against, but cosplaying an electoral vote does not meet the legal requirements to create a valid electoral vote certificate.
So they are trying to prevent the cosplayers from successfully impersonating actual electors.
> I'm not going to respond to all of your points because my blood pressure can't take this, but I will close out with this comment: what happened yesterday is the electoral equivalent of lynching.
Thats hyperbolic and undemocratic.
> Even if you think it is justified, it is still an extralegal attempt by a mob to execute their will, damning the due process of anyone they come across.
Yeah I didn't support their actions but its kind of like the protests last summer: riots are the language of the unheard.
This presumes that your perspective on the alleged fraud is factually correct. If we don't presume the facts of the matter one way or the other, it looks like they may have been petitioning their government for redress.
> Let me put it like this: if I were to kill the President, I would be a murderer. It doesn't matter if I think he's a deranged nutcase whose continued presidency would irrevocably damage the country: I would still be committing first-degree murder
I think the same argument applies to vote fraud. It doesn't matter how much you hate the president (or think him incompetent, or whatever), vote fraud is vote fraud.
> Some cosplayers did pretend to make electoral vote certificates to compete against, but cosplaying an electoral vote does not meet the legal requirements to create a valid electoral vote certificate.
So they are trying to prevent the cosplayers from successfully impersonating actual electors.
> I'm not going to respond to all of your points because my blood pressure can't take this, but I will close out with this comment: what happened yesterday is the electoral equivalent of lynching.
Thats hyperbolic and undemocratic.
> Even if you think it is justified, it is still an extralegal attempt by a mob to execute their will, damning the due process of anyone they come across.
Yeah I didn't support their actions but its kind of like the protests last summer: riots are the language of the unheard.
> So they are trying to prevent the cosplayers from successfully impersonating actual electors.
The cosplayers are the people who pretended to be the Republican electors in the states of Arizona, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Georgia, despite failing to meet the statutory requirements of meeting in the appointed place, having the vote signed by the respective Secretary of State, and having the vote receipt submitted to the National Archives.
In other words, these are people whose actions as purported electors are not legitimate. It is as if I were to put on a shirt with the word "POLICE" on it and print out a badge that had the same word of it--it doesn't actually make me a police officer, merely someone cosplaying a police officer. (Although as electors are not public officials, they are unlikely to run afoul of any laws, unless there is some fraud statute that is broad enough to cover this).
Their actions did not have the force of law. The seditionous mob who wanted to stop the electoral count are the people who want to install cosplayers as electors in flagrant violation of the law.
> Thats hyperbolic and undemocratic.
A lynching is a mob taking it upon themselves to murder someone in response to an alleged crime in an extralegal attempt to achieve justice, completely in violation of all due process. What happened yesterday was a mob taking it upon themselves to overturn the lawful results of the election in response to an alleged crime in an extralegal attempt to achieve justice, completely in violation of all due process. That is the antithesis of rule of law; it is not hyperbolic or undemocratic to draw that comparison.
The cosplayers are the people who pretended to be the Republican electors in the states of Arizona, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Georgia, despite failing to meet the statutory requirements of meeting in the appointed place, having the vote signed by the respective Secretary of State, and having the vote receipt submitted to the National Archives.
In other words, these are people whose actions as purported electors are not legitimate. It is as if I were to put on a shirt with the word "POLICE" on it and print out a badge that had the same word of it--it doesn't actually make me a police officer, merely someone cosplaying a police officer. (Although as electors are not public officials, they are unlikely to run afoul of any laws, unless there is some fraud statute that is broad enough to cover this).
Their actions did not have the force of law. The seditionous mob who wanted to stop the electoral count are the people who want to install cosplayers as electors in flagrant violation of the law.
> Thats hyperbolic and undemocratic.
A lynching is a mob taking it upon themselves to murder someone in response to an alleged crime in an extralegal attempt to achieve justice, completely in violation of all due process. What happened yesterday was a mob taking it upon themselves to overturn the lawful results of the election in response to an alleged crime in an extralegal attempt to achieve justice, completely in violation of all due process. That is the antithesis of rule of law; it is not hyperbolic or undemocratic to draw that comparison.
> The cosplayers are the people who pretended to be the Republican electors in the states of Arizona, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Georgia, despite failing to meet the statutory requirements of meeting in the appointed place, having the vote signed by the respective Secretary of State, and having the vote receipt submitted to the National Archives.
We've already seen that failure to meet statutory requirements is not sufficient to disqualify an election, elector, or ballot. Otherwise PA would have gone to trump because of the backdated postmarks.
> In other words, these are people whose actions as purported electors are not legitimate.
According to you. Other people feel that these are the legitimate electors. Since legitimacy is a social construct and not a physical phenomenon, there is no objective answer.
> It is as if I were to put on a shirt with the word "POLICE" on it and print out a badge that had the same word of it--it doesn't actually make me a police officer, merely someone cosplaying a police officer.
Likewise, if the result of an election is altered due to ballot stuffing and other forms of compromise, the apparent victor is not legitimate, but a cosplayer.
> What happened yesterday was a mob taking it upon themselves to overturn the lawful results of the election in response to an alleged crime in an extralegal attempt to achieve justice, completely in violation of all due process.
Yes that's your opinion. If you refrain from assuming your own opinion about unknown facts to be automatically correct, then you can see how they may have felt themselves to be members of the public who were petitioning their government or performatively airing grievances just like their antifa/blm counterparts have been doing for years.
We've already seen that failure to meet statutory requirements is not sufficient to disqualify an election, elector, or ballot. Otherwise PA would have gone to trump because of the backdated postmarks.
> In other words, these are people whose actions as purported electors are not legitimate.
According to you. Other people feel that these are the legitimate electors. Since legitimacy is a social construct and not a physical phenomenon, there is no objective answer.
> It is as if I were to put on a shirt with the word "POLICE" on it and print out a badge that had the same word of it--it doesn't actually make me a police officer, merely someone cosplaying a police officer.
Likewise, if the result of an election is altered due to ballot stuffing and other forms of compromise, the apparent victor is not legitimate, but a cosplayer.
> What happened yesterday was a mob taking it upon themselves to overturn the lawful results of the election in response to an alleged crime in an extralegal attempt to achieve justice, completely in violation of all due process.
Yes that's your opinion. If you refrain from assuming your own opinion about unknown facts to be automatically correct, then you can see how they may have felt themselves to be members of the public who were petitioning their government or performatively airing grievances just like their antifa/blm counterparts have been doing for years.
> and statistical anomalies that suggest the election wasn't conducted properly
I have yet to see any strong evidence that the election wasn't conducted properly.
I have see a lot of people on HN make vague statements along the lines of "there are things that suggest that some shady things may have taken place".
Every one of these statements was unsourced, and carried a general subtext that any claim of fraud automatically deserved attention and belief, no matter how little evidence was provided, and that the burden on proof should lie on people refuting these claims.
I usually want to assume good faith, but this is really hard here. You obviously can't say "Bill Gates sent assassins kill my parents" and, when ask with any evidence that Gates did this or that your parents are even dead, complain that people aren't taking the Bill Gates threat seriously enough. The burden of proof is on you for making extraordinary claims. The claims of widespread fraud should require extraordinary evidence as well, and there really hasn't been any.
I have yet to see any strong evidence that the election wasn't conducted properly.
I have see a lot of people on HN make vague statements along the lines of "there are things that suggest that some shady things may have taken place".
Every one of these statements was unsourced, and carried a general subtext that any claim of fraud automatically deserved attention and belief, no matter how little evidence was provided, and that the burden on proof should lie on people refuting these claims.
I usually want to assume good faith, but this is really hard here. You obviously can't say "Bill Gates sent assassins kill my parents" and, when ask with any evidence that Gates did this or that your parents are even dead, complain that people aren't taking the Bill Gates threat seriously enough. The burden of proof is on you for making extraordinary claims. The claims of widespread fraud should require extraordinary evidence as well, and there really hasn't been any.
> I have yet to see any strong evidence that the election wasn't conducted properly.
Well have you seen any evidence at all? What evidence would you expect to see and where have you looked?
> I have see a lot of people on HN make vague statements along the lines of "there are things that suggest that some shady things may have taken place". Every one of these statements was unsourced, and carried a general subtext that any claim of fraud automatically deserved attention and belief, no matter how little evidence was provided, and that the burden on proof should lie on people refuting these claims.
Why didn't they just link to [0]?
> The burden of proof is on you for making extraordinary claims. The claims of widespread fraud should require extraordinary evidence as well, and there really hasn't been any.
Well I think its extraordinary to claim (without evidence) that an adversarial process with high stakes and poor process controls was not corrupted.
[0] https://apelbaum.wordpress.com/2020/12/03/the-georgia-ballot...
Well have you seen any evidence at all? What evidence would you expect to see and where have you looked?
> I have see a lot of people on HN make vague statements along the lines of "there are things that suggest that some shady things may have taken place". Every one of these statements was unsourced, and carried a general subtext that any claim of fraud automatically deserved attention and belief, no matter how little evidence was provided, and that the burden on proof should lie on people refuting these claims.
Why didn't they just link to [0]?
> The burden of proof is on you for making extraordinary claims. The claims of widespread fraud should require extraordinary evidence as well, and there really hasn't been any.
Well I think its extraordinary to claim (without evidence) that an adversarial process with high stakes and poor process controls was not corrupted.
[0] https://apelbaum.wordpress.com/2020/12/03/the-georgia-ballot...
Most people, me included, would require further evidence of fraud than ballot counters counting ballots. That article has a lot of deep-level evidence of verifying the ballot counters are, in fact ballot counters, but mere allegations that they were doing anything unusual.
> Most people, me included, would require further evidence of fraud than ballot counters counting ballots.
Perhaps you're right and this is a sign that democracy is fundamentally broken. If people aren't able to understand that many forms of election compromise (e.g. ballot stuffing) are indistinguishable from a normal election without properly respected controls and audits.
> but mere allegations that they were doing anything unusual.
There are allegations coupled with evidence to support them, which is what is necessary to make an accusation that can be investigated.
Perhaps you're right and this is a sign that democracy is fundamentally broken. If people aren't able to understand that many forms of election compromise (e.g. ballot stuffing) are indistinguishable from a normal election without properly respected controls and audits.
> but mere allegations that they were doing anything unusual.
There are allegations coupled with evidence to support them, which is what is necessary to make an accusation that can be investigated.
>Perhaps you're right and this is a sign that democracy is fundamentally broken. If people aren't able to understand that many forms of election compromise (e.g. ballot stuffing) are indistinguishable from a normal election without properly respected controls and audits.
Maybe faith in the process should be shaken, but a volatile transition period isn't the time. I have full faith that the election process has a moderately low fraud rate, below any amount that would change the outcome. Even so, the peaceful transition of power is more important than any particular mechanism. If any of the parties involved would like to raise a court case actually alleging fraud (which is why the cases have been dismissed: because they failed to do so, and anything short of this would have no remedy), an investigation would be in order. But it appears that fifty-seven cases have been filed, finding 108 votes whose signatures were improperly validated.
So what, exactly, is the problem here? It seems like you're raising concerns of things that could have happened, without any actual weight behind them that they did happen. It's meaningless.
Maybe faith in the process should be shaken, but a volatile transition period isn't the time. I have full faith that the election process has a moderately low fraud rate, below any amount that would change the outcome. Even so, the peaceful transition of power is more important than any particular mechanism. If any of the parties involved would like to raise a court case actually alleging fraud (which is why the cases have been dismissed: because they failed to do so, and anything short of this would have no remedy), an investigation would be in order. But it appears that fifty-seven cases have been filed, finding 108 votes whose signatures were improperly validated.
So what, exactly, is the problem here? It seems like you're raising concerns of things that could have happened, without any actual weight behind them that they did happen. It's meaningless.
> Maybe faith in the process should be shaken, but a volatile transition period isn't the time.
I doubt that its correct to allow someone to take office under the cloud of illegitimacy because of our fears of "volatility." The best thing for stability is clearly to what is necessary to ensure that the elections are both secure and known to be secure.
> I have full faith that the election process has a moderately low fraud rate, below any amount that would change the outcome.
The problem is that people with an interest in subverting the process see your faith as an asset. You have faith in elections, good. We need to demonstrate election security to people who do not share your faith.
> Even so, the peaceful transition of power is more important than any particular mechanism.
I think that making sure anyone in power is actually legitimate is probably more important than that.
> If any of the parties involved would like to raise a court case actually alleging fraud (which is why the cases have been dismissed
Many were dismissed for procedural grounds or lack of standing; additionally proving fraud requires proving intent, which is not easy.
> because they failed to do so, and anything short of this would have no remedy
Thats another problem, one shouldn't need to prove the state of mind of a hostile party in order to demonstrate that an election was corrupted.
> an investigation would be in order.
There are open investigations. Despite this, some people insist that we coronate their preferred candidate without seeing what law enforcement is able to discover.
> So what, exactly, is the problem here? It seems like you're raising concerns of things that could have happened, without any actual weight behind them that they did happen. It's meaningless.
I'm not sure what you're asking. There's a video of poll workers counting ballots that had been hidden under a table until all the R observers had left. No one has presented a chain of custody for those ballots. The people who may have stuffed the ballot box with questionable ballots say they didn't. There's an open investigation, so they won't release any evidence that would show that these ballots are legitimate (assuming they would even be able to prove that); but that doesn't stop the investigator from making a sworn statement that nothing happened; naturally there was no supporting evidence.
> without any actual weight behind them that they did happen
I'm saying it happened and its on video. I don't think the excuse "ballot stuffing is how we normally win elections" is going to de-escalate the situation.
I doubt that its correct to allow someone to take office under the cloud of illegitimacy because of our fears of "volatility." The best thing for stability is clearly to what is necessary to ensure that the elections are both secure and known to be secure.
> I have full faith that the election process has a moderately low fraud rate, below any amount that would change the outcome.
The problem is that people with an interest in subverting the process see your faith as an asset. You have faith in elections, good. We need to demonstrate election security to people who do not share your faith.
> Even so, the peaceful transition of power is more important than any particular mechanism.
I think that making sure anyone in power is actually legitimate is probably more important than that.
> If any of the parties involved would like to raise a court case actually alleging fraud (which is why the cases have been dismissed
Many were dismissed for procedural grounds or lack of standing; additionally proving fraud requires proving intent, which is not easy.
> because they failed to do so, and anything short of this would have no remedy
Thats another problem, one shouldn't need to prove the state of mind of a hostile party in order to demonstrate that an election was corrupted.
> an investigation would be in order.
There are open investigations. Despite this, some people insist that we coronate their preferred candidate without seeing what law enforcement is able to discover.
> So what, exactly, is the problem here? It seems like you're raising concerns of things that could have happened, without any actual weight behind them that they did happen. It's meaningless.
I'm not sure what you're asking. There's a video of poll workers counting ballots that had been hidden under a table until all the R observers had left. No one has presented a chain of custody for those ballots. The people who may have stuffed the ballot box with questionable ballots say they didn't. There's an open investigation, so they won't release any evidence that would show that these ballots are legitimate (assuming they would even be able to prove that); but that doesn't stop the investigator from making a sworn statement that nothing happened; naturally there was no supporting evidence.
> without any actual weight behind them that they did happen
I'm saying it happened and its on video. I don't think the excuse "ballot stuffing is how we normally win elections" is going to de-escalate the situation.
Election fraud requires intent, because honest mistakes would have been caught during the recount process; areas that performed a recount this election fell within the normal margins for a recount. You have a video of ballot counters counting ballots. That's not incriminating in any way.
Anyone who is dissatisfied with this election should logically be dissatisfied with every election, so should pick their battles wisely and attempt to fix the system such that their concerns are possible to alleviate. Raising concerns with this election in particular makes it seem as if this election was in any way exceptional, which except for the candidates, it was not. It's equally concerning whether the 2016 election was legitimate. Or 2012. Or 2008. Or...
There is absolutely no tracability on ballots, by design, at this stage. There is no way to prove who voted for whom, due to abuses of this knowledge in the past. There is no proof that can be provided at this point that the election was "legitimate", whatever standard of proof that requires. To provide such proof would require a change to the entire electoral system, and absolutely cannot be done retroactively.
Anyone who is dissatisfied with this election should logically be dissatisfied with every election, so should pick their battles wisely and attempt to fix the system such that their concerns are possible to alleviate. Raising concerns with this election in particular makes it seem as if this election was in any way exceptional, which except for the candidates, it was not. It's equally concerning whether the 2016 election was legitimate. Or 2012. Or 2008. Or...
There is absolutely no tracability on ballots, by design, at this stage. There is no way to prove who voted for whom, due to abuses of this knowledge in the past. There is no proof that can be provided at this point that the election was "legitimate", whatever standard of proof that requires. To provide such proof would require a change to the entire electoral system, and absolutely cannot be done retroactively.
> Election fraud requires intent, because honest mistakes would have been caught during the recount process;
The accusation of election fraud requires intent because fraud requires intent. The successful performance of election fraud usually involves not conveying your intent to defraud because then people wouldn't trust your role in the election.
> There is absolutely no tracability on ballots, by design, at this stage.
Yes, this is why its suspicious that people staged ballots by removing their envelopes, then hid them under a table and waited until the (R) observers had left. So if its known and understood that no one is able to prove that those ballots had a legitimate chain of custody then how are they debunking the allegation that fraud occurred? It sounds like you're saying that the way the system is set up, its not possible to prove that the election was legitimate.
> Anyone who is dissatisfied with this election would be impossible to satisfy.
Right after you point out that it was designed in a way that would be impossible to verify, you say this.
The accusation of election fraud requires intent because fraud requires intent. The successful performance of election fraud usually involves not conveying your intent to defraud because then people wouldn't trust your role in the election.
> There is absolutely no tracability on ballots, by design, at this stage.
Yes, this is why its suspicious that people staged ballots by removing their envelopes, then hid them under a table and waited until the (R) observers had left. So if its known and understood that no one is able to prove that those ballots had a legitimate chain of custody then how are they debunking the allegation that fraud occurred? It sounds like you're saying that the way the system is set up, its not possible to prove that the election was legitimate.
> Anyone who is dissatisfied with this election would be impossible to satisfy.
Right after you point out that it was designed in a way that would be impossible to verify, you say this.
I've followed most of these sub-threads here and would like to thank you for all the civil discussion. I found it very informative, and I commend your patience. While I remain convinced that election fraud has not been a meaningful influence on the outcome of this election, I fundamentally agree with you that perception of this issue is just as important, and that the applebaum link is reasonably interpreted as fraud occurring. To that extent, I think that your comments are downvoted unfairly.
Where I disagree with your argument is that this is fundamentally the cause of what has transcended in DC.
You say that Trump lawsuits have been dismissed instead of evidence being entertained, but if according to his own lawyers there is no allegation of fraud, what exactly do you expect? Why would anyone then believe that his other lawsuits are actually trying to resolve anomalies instead of being political smoke and mirrors to point his base to?
Similarly, it is simply inconceivable that there was sufficient fraud for a "landslide" Trump victory. It has absolutely no basis in fact. Yet this is exactly what Trump is preaching to whomever is willing to listen.
The reason people are storming the capitol is not because there are too few investigations, or because fraud has occurred. The exact same rhetoric and lies that Trump is employing right now would have just the same effect if there had been precisely zero cases and zero entertainable evidence of fraud.
Where I disagree with your argument is that this is fundamentally the cause of what has transcended in DC.
You say that Trump lawsuits have been dismissed instead of evidence being entertained, but if according to his own lawyers there is no allegation of fraud, what exactly do you expect? Why would anyone then believe that his other lawsuits are actually trying to resolve anomalies instead of being political smoke and mirrors to point his base to?
Similarly, it is simply inconceivable that there was sufficient fraud for a "landslide" Trump victory. It has absolutely no basis in fact. Yet this is exactly what Trump is preaching to whomever is willing to listen.
The reason people are storming the capitol is not because there are too few investigations, or because fraud has occurred. The exact same rhetoric and lies that Trump is employing right now would have just the same effect if there had been precisely zero cases and zero entertainable evidence of fraud.
Thanks for your civil reply.
> I fundamentally agree with you that perception of this issue is just as important, and that the applebaum link is reasonably interpreted as fraud occurring.
I appreciate this.
> Where I disagree with your argument is that this is fundamentally the cause of what has transcended in DC.
Thats reasonable and in my opinion its too early (for me anyway) to understand fundamental causes at this time.
> You say that Trump lawsuits have been dismissed instead of evidence being entertained, but if according to his own lawyers there is no allegation of fraud, what exactly do you expect?
This is a good question and it gets into the types of election compromise and legal definition. My understanding is that (legally) fraud requires intent, and they didn't have evidence of intent. In civil election cases, (again my understanding as a layman) they are supposed to show that the number of votes that can be questioned is greater than the apparent margin of victory. So about the fraud thing, they didn't make the accusation in court because it wasn't necessary and couldn't be supported to the legal standard. But here in a normal conversation we can kind of assume that if election integrity was compromised in order to boost one candidate over another, it was intentional and call it fraud. Even though challenging the results in court might not involve alleging fraud.
> Why would anyone then believe that his other lawsuits are actually trying to resolve anomalies instead of being political smoke and mirrors to point his base to?
Its reasonable to suspect that these lawsuits are intended to rile the base and lack legal merit. I'm only really concerned with the sworn affidavits filed by observers that allege they were prevented from doing their jobs. A regular poll worker assumes a lot of liability for doing this, with questionable benefit. And if people are filing false affidavits to help trump with his propaganda, that needs to be investigated and the responsible parties need to be charged. Filing a false affidavit with the court is perjury.
> Similarly, it is simply inconceivable that there was sufficient fraud for a "landslide" Trump victory.
Its fine for you to have that as a prior but with strong words like "inconceivable" you should have some solid arguments as well.
> The reason people are storming the capitol is not because there are too few investigations, or because fraud has occurred. The exact same rhetoric and lies that Trump is employing right now would have just the same effect if there had been precisely zero cases and zero entertainable evidence of fraud.
I disagree, trump's rhetoric works precisely because there is enough reasonable evidence to call into question your perspective on election integrity, and people are upset that it's being ignored.
> I fundamentally agree with you that perception of this issue is just as important, and that the applebaum link is reasonably interpreted as fraud occurring.
I appreciate this.
> Where I disagree with your argument is that this is fundamentally the cause of what has transcended in DC.
Thats reasonable and in my opinion its too early (for me anyway) to understand fundamental causes at this time.
> You say that Trump lawsuits have been dismissed instead of evidence being entertained, but if according to his own lawyers there is no allegation of fraud, what exactly do you expect?
This is a good question and it gets into the types of election compromise and legal definition. My understanding is that (legally) fraud requires intent, and they didn't have evidence of intent. In civil election cases, (again my understanding as a layman) they are supposed to show that the number of votes that can be questioned is greater than the apparent margin of victory. So about the fraud thing, they didn't make the accusation in court because it wasn't necessary and couldn't be supported to the legal standard. But here in a normal conversation we can kind of assume that if election integrity was compromised in order to boost one candidate over another, it was intentional and call it fraud. Even though challenging the results in court might not involve alleging fraud.
> Why would anyone then believe that his other lawsuits are actually trying to resolve anomalies instead of being political smoke and mirrors to point his base to?
Its reasonable to suspect that these lawsuits are intended to rile the base and lack legal merit. I'm only really concerned with the sworn affidavits filed by observers that allege they were prevented from doing their jobs. A regular poll worker assumes a lot of liability for doing this, with questionable benefit. And if people are filing false affidavits to help trump with his propaganda, that needs to be investigated and the responsible parties need to be charged. Filing a false affidavit with the court is perjury.
> Similarly, it is simply inconceivable that there was sufficient fraud for a "landslide" Trump victory.
Its fine for you to have that as a prior but with strong words like "inconceivable" you should have some solid arguments as well.
> The reason people are storming the capitol is not because there are too few investigations, or because fraud has occurred. The exact same rhetoric and lies that Trump is employing right now would have just the same effect if there had been precisely zero cases and zero entertainable evidence of fraud.
I disagree, trump's rhetoric works precisely because there is enough reasonable evidence to call into question your perspective on election integrity, and people are upset that it's being ignored.
> I disagree, trump's rhetoric works precisely because there is enough reasonable evidence to call into question your perspective on election integrity, and people are upset that it's being ignored.
It is clear to me that Trump and his surroundings have no qualms about fabricating "truths" in whatever quantity fitting whatever narrative to match their aims. This has been the playbook from day 1, see [0]. It appears to work regardless of any underlying facts.
I fully admit that I am not privy to the perspective of and influences on Trump supporters at large and capitol stormers in particular. However, the idea that there is a meaningful bar of evidence to clear before his supporters buy into his statements appears largely unfounded to me. Otherwise our current reality would be incompatible with [0].
And let me be perfectly clear that virtually every human will believe a convenient "truth" at some point or another. But given the degree to which Trump's entire sphere of influence has supported any outlandish, nonsensical or downright contradictory thought he expresses, I do not see how election integrity measures would have moved the needle in this regard. (Which is not to dismiss the need for them, just their influence on this attack).
[0]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-claim...
It is clear to me that Trump and his surroundings have no qualms about fabricating "truths" in whatever quantity fitting whatever narrative to match their aims. This has been the playbook from day 1, see [0]. It appears to work regardless of any underlying facts.
I fully admit that I am not privy to the perspective of and influences on Trump supporters at large and capitol stormers in particular. However, the idea that there is a meaningful bar of evidence to clear before his supporters buy into his statements appears largely unfounded to me. Otherwise our current reality would be incompatible with [0].
And let me be perfectly clear that virtually every human will believe a convenient "truth" at some point or another. But given the degree to which Trump's entire sphere of influence has supported any outlandish, nonsensical or downright contradictory thought he expresses, I do not see how election integrity measures would have moved the needle in this regard. (Which is not to dismiss the need for them, just their influence on this attack).
[0]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-claim...
As with 2016, the time to investigate them is after the election under the next legislature.
Thus why trump got to keep his presidency in 2016
Thus why trump got to keep his presidency in 2016
The fact that they let people vote in person is highly suspect. It should have been a fully mail in vote to avoid covid
Nothing ever comes of it because it's always possible to say, "well the investigation wasn't honest" and keep on believing there was fraud. After all the failed court cases and "witnesses" retracting their statements or admitting it was hearsay, it hasn't changed some people's minds.
Videos appear and then are explained but it doesn't matter because there is always a shadowy conspiracy.
https://madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/misplac...
Videos appear and then are explained but it doesn't matter because there is always a shadowy conspiracy.
https://madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/misplac...
> Nothing ever comes of it because it's always possible to say, "well the investigation wasn't honest" and keep on believing there was fraud.
Release of an investigation report would go a long way to quiet these claims.
> https://madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/misplac...
Wouldn't display for some reason.
Release of an investigation report would go a long way to quiet these claims.
> https://madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/misplac...
Wouldn't display for some reason.
I think, for the safety of all involved, it may be time to enact section 4 of the 25th Amendment.
Amendment 25 - Section 4: Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
Amendment 25 - Section 4: Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
That's a bad idea. His presidency is basically over. The only thing it would accomplish is to convince his diehard supporters that a coup is in fact taking place and they should respond in kind.
I am so sick of people cowering to idiots with assault rifles strapped to their chest threatening violence. If you hold the above attitude, it is working. This country cannot be held hostage because following the law will cause people to get pissed off and break shit.
25 or die!
25 or die!
This attitude seems like a way for the republic to die with a whimper.
His diehards are already convinced of that.
What he means is it would tip them over the edge and declare war against the government. Just like the way Ruby Ridge/Waco pushed McVeigh, only this time it would be much greater numbers willing to fight.
A couple thousand of them using bombs/weapons could cause massive amounts of continuous long-term damage. Guerilla warfare, as we've come to find out over the past 50 years, is nearly unwinnable. It would manifest as The Troubles American Edition.
McVeigh, John Brown, Bin Laden, Eric Rudolph, Kaczynski, are all the classic extremist that's willing to do whatever it takes to right what they perceive as an injustice.
A couple thousand of them using bombs/weapons could cause massive amounts of continuous long-term damage. Guerilla warfare, as we've come to find out over the past 50 years, is nearly unwinnable. It would manifest as The Troubles American Edition.
McVeigh, John Brown, Bin Laden, Eric Rudolph, Kaczynski, are all the classic extremist that's willing to do whatever it takes to right what they perceive as an injustice.
Honestly, I disagree.
The strategy of not provoking the bear didn't work. The bear is provoked and attacked. Now is not the time to play dead and hope it gets bored. This bear will not get bored. This bear will happily feast, satisfied that the prey didn't put up a fight.
The strategy of not provoking the bear didn't work. The bear is provoked and attacked. Now is not the time to play dead and hope it gets bored. This bear will not get bored. This bear will happily feast, satisfied that the prey didn't put up a fight.
I don't think so. Watch, my prediction is that Trump will be gone on schedule and things will return to some semblance of normal.
What more damage will be have done, by the time he's gone on schedule?
I think that's part of what's at stake.
I think that's part of what's at stake.
Trump is a grifter and a narcissist. He will not go away after the election. He will do everything he can to stay in the public eye and milk more money out of his supporters. Expect him to try to assert control over the Republican Party after the election.
Imo, the only way to deal with someone like him is to go scorched earth.
Imo, the only way to deal with someone like him is to go scorched earth.
> What he means is it would tip them over the edge and declare war against the government.
Where would storming the Capitol slot in on the spectrum?
Where would storming the Capitol slot in on the spectrum?
Not as bad as blowing up occupied federal buildings
There were reports that pipe bombs were found at both the RNC and DNC headquarters today.
It can get a lot worse than that. They were being "civilized" today.
To the downvoter, surely you don't think this is as bad as it can get.
To the downvoter, surely you don't think this is as bad as it can get.
> To the downvoter, surely you don't think this is as bad as it can get.
That's the argument for removing him.
We can pretty easily imagine what riots getting larger might look like. You very obviously are not thinking about what a sociopathic president coming more and more unwrapped might look like.
That's the argument for removing him.
We can pretty easily imagine what riots getting larger might look like. You very obviously are not thinking about what a sociopathic president coming more and more unwrapped might look like.
> What he means is it would tip them over the edge and declare war against the government.
What edge haven't they gone over already? From my reading of TD [dot] win they are 100% already there. What is being suggested is akin to negotiating with terrorists.
What edge haven't they gone over already? From my reading of TD [dot] win they are 100% already there. What is being suggested is akin to negotiating with terrorists.
From these people's perspective, they are already on the losing side of a successful and massive coup, where even Mike Pence could be involved. So how does one recover from that narrative?
Guerilla warfare only works if the guerillas can hide among a sympathetic populace or in a remote area. The former seems unlikely (how many Americans are really willing to risk life or freedom for Trump) and the latter is largely ineffective because of geographic separation from targets.
Hasn't it become clear that appeasement won't work with these people?
No. Weigh the risk and reward. If you take harsh action now, you risk provoking the situation for what? He's gone in two weeks.
Just maintain order and wait it out.
Just maintain order and wait it out.
It seems to me that teaching potential demagogues that they will go unpunished if it's sufficiently inconvenient is a bad lesson to teach if you want to keep a republic.
You can't impeach or have any justice done in two weeks. It's just not worth it.
If there's some kind of crime that's been committed and it can be prosecuted successfully, then by all means after he's out of office. I don't think that's the case though.
If there's some kind of crime that's been committed and it can be prosecuted successfully, then by all means after he's out of office. I don't think that's the case though.
You can prevent him from pardoning the rioters. You can bar him from running again.
Impeachment actually does things other express disappointment.
Impeachment actually does things other express disappointment.
I have been hearing this same shit for 4 years and look at this smoking crater.
Ridiculous. The brazen depravity of this man must be met with consequences. Life is tolerable because we agree on a system of laws to abide by. What you're saying is like claiming it's fine to cheat on an exam if it's the last week of your degree. A harsh example must be made out of Trump.
Given that this would make Mike Pence the acting president, how would that be a coup? In this story, would Mike Pence be a puppet to greater, shadowy forces?
Or impeach & convict. He’s a threat to the republic, and he has to go.
Convict takes 2/3. DC falling is more likely than the miracle that has republicans crossing party lines to alienate their monstrous base.
Both sides have monstrous bases. Have you already forgotten the summer riots?
It sucks.
It sucks.
I am sick and fucking tired of both sides-ism.
No. You're sick of seeing the one side you support being in the wrong and doing exactly what you despise in the opposite side. It makes one sick and fucking tired indeed.
Can you please provide examples of the liberal side trying to violently overturn the results of an election, or the liberal side murdering people in the streets like at Charlottesville or more recently in Kenosha?
No that hasn't been done by the left before as far as I know.
What i know though is that last summer the BLM protests were burning buildings and looting business, if that's not violence I have no clue what the hell is.
Sorry so just to be clear, the left hasn't been "doing exactly what [I] despise in the opposite side" which is to say literally murdering people?
This is what sibling commenter meant by stop with the both-sidesism. Smashing up a Target and murdering a person are not the same thing. You're apologizing for murderers, congratulations.
This is what sibling commenter meant by stop with the both-sidesism. Smashing up a Target and murdering a person are not the same thing. You're apologizing for murderers, congratulations.
Gimme a call when the left attempts to overthrow the legitimate government of the United States of America with force. Until then, don’t presume to know how I feel.
That's stupid. No impeachment process could ever finish on time.
It can be done in 30min if they want. Impeachment goes how congress wants it to, the only part of the process set in stone is the voting requirements.
Edit: oh and the 25th amendment would allow trump to object and be effectively tried in the senate. That amendment is really designed more for “the president is in a coma” than for “the president is currently trying to overthrow the government”.
Edit: oh and the 25th amendment would allow trump to object and be effectively tried in the senate. That amendment is really designed more for “the president is in a coma” than for “the president is currently trying to overthrow the government”.
If you rush impeachment, you will obliterate any productivity you sought for impeachment. The same is true for elections in that these aren't just procedural events, they are soul-defining events for a democracy, and the loss of credibility would be losing what matters most.
Another Mueller would take forever to prepare a case for the American people.
Another Mueller would take forever to prepare a case for the American people.
The republic is at stake and armed rioters have broken into the capital. To let the president do this and do nothing is to give up more credibility. It is to admit that the legislature is incapable of even providing for its own physical security, let alone the needs of their constituents.
I keep seeing "armed rioters" but have not seen any evidence. Could you point me to it?
I have heard reports of gunfire being exchanged through the door to the House: https://twitter.com/MEPFuller/status/1346905489561579532.
Surely that would qualify as "armed", and the "rioter" I would hope should be self-evident.
Surely that would qualify as "armed", and the "rioter" I would hope should be self-evident.
The gunfire was probably of the unarmed woman getting shot and killed: https://twitter.com/ALQadiPAL/status/1346960691278848000.
Highly doubt that it was an armed protester shooting.
Highly doubt that it was an armed protester shooting.
> Highly doubt that it was an armed protester shooting.
Did you get that from the same place that you got the idea that the election was stolen?
Did you get that from the same place that you got the idea that the election was stolen?
No, I got it from the evidence an unarmed woman was shot and killed while the faces at the door where the "shooting" by the "armed rioters" allegedly took place were unharmed. Where did you get the idea that I believe the election was stolen? From the comment where I said "Now if we get to day three of this crap with no signs of it letting up, the National Guard unable to control the situation, and Trump actively supporting them, definitely throw him out."?
[deleted]
> Highly doubt that it was an armed protester shooting.
Seems more likely than an unarmed protestor shooting?
Seems more likely than an unarmed protestor shooting?
[deleted]
At least one gun was seized.
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/01/06/us/washington-dc-pro...
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/01/06/us/washington-dc-pro...
If hundreds rioting and looting in multiple cities for multiple days for liberal causes only qualifies for "mostly peaceful protesters, this qualifies a "peaceful protesters" still.
Where were the peaceful ones? BLM was a protest movement of something like 12M people, huge protests were covered extensively with no violence whatsoever. This was a mob that pushed down gates and forced entry into the capitol building. There was no "peaceful" component that I could see.
Evidence, please. I lived in a major US city, have a friend there who's a senior-level libertarian cleaning state trooper, and he told me the protests he knew about personally were peaceful. Nor did I see violent rioters myself.
* Man pointing an AR-15: https://twitter.com/JasonRCharter/status/1346988230101528579
* Man carrying a Glock and zipties: https://twitter.com/JasonRCharter/status/1347030226845446144...
* Man carrying a Glock and zipties: https://twitter.com/JasonRCharter/status/1347030226845446144...
From what I understand, impeachment can also bar an individual from public office again.
I'm not clear on whether that means the vote could extend past January 20th and the end result is that it goes on his permanent record.
I'm not clear on whether that means the vote could extend past January 20th and the end result is that it goes on his permanent record.
President Johnson was impeached 3 days after the offense for which he was impeached, the senate then voted on the removal 8 days after that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Andrew_Johnson
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Andrew_Johnson
Impeachment trial does not need to end when his term does. They can still bar him from any future office and show that the rule of law matters.
There's no reason why it would need to take more than a few minutes.
It's not going to happen, but not due to time constraints.
It's not going to happen, but not due to time constraints.
Usually as part of the impeachment vote, the Senate also decides if the President should be banned from holding office ever again. This would prevent a 2024 run by 45.
[deleted]
Wouldn't that cause him to be an even greater threat? It would "justify" an escalation.
We’re talking about someone who conjures justifications out of thin air. He doesn’t need anyone to believe him
I've played down the threat of Trump over the years. Mostly because the idea that a coup was possible was kind of laughable. That sort of attitude has given him and his supporters space to sort of play coup. As in they could say whatever they wanted because everyone, including those saying it, thought nothing would come of it.
But this is the end of play time. It's a real world consequence. And a shocking one at that. It was a violent attempt to take over the seat of power and prevent the democratic transfer of power.
It's not a play coup anymore. Trump and his supporters are an attempting an honest to goodness actual coup. He needs to face consequences. IMHO, impeachment isn't enough. More like he can peacefully hand over power or Jan 20th 12:01 PM put him on a plane to Guantanamo until such time it's safe to try him for treason.
But this is the end of play time. It's a real world consequence. And a shocking one at that. It was a violent attempt to take over the seat of power and prevent the democratic transfer of power.
It's not a play coup anymore. Trump and his supporters are an attempting an honest to goodness actual coup. He needs to face consequences. IMHO, impeachment isn't enough. More like he can peacefully hand over power or Jan 20th 12:01 PM put him on a plane to Guantanamo until such time it's safe to try him for treason.
Do you believe Trump has some super dangerous card to play when he's about to be removed from office? Because impeachment or not, I think he's about to be removed from office.
Well, he has a football...
[deleted]
It is not about Trump himself, but his supporters. If they are taking his election loss like this, how do you suppose they would take forceful removal from office?
You can't let their threats of violence prevent continued function of the US government
At least thousands of armchair revolutionaries will finally have their pet theories on the efficacy of the Second Amendment put to the test.
Unnecessarily and forcefully removing Trump from office prior to Biden's inauguration will only decrease the ability of the US government to function. After a few hours and only a feeble attempt to control the situation? It could be the final whimper of disgruntled Trump supporters who go home the next day. Now if we get to day three of this crap with no signs of it letting up, the National Guard unable to control the situation, and Trump actively supporting them, definitely throw him out.
They are already convinced that they're removing him forcefully from the office.
Can't impeach if the capital isn't secure.
I am sure they can convene in a bunker somewhere
Or over zoom like everybody else?
I am sitting here feeling awful and anxious about this. Thank a for the laugh. :-)
nation state deep fake has entered the call
Just has to be delivered to those officials. Where ever they are.
I wrote my Representative and Senators an hour ago to urge them to impeach/convict respectively.
The bar for when incitement to violence loses its constitutionally-protected status is "incitement to imminent lawless act" (from Brandenburg v Ohio). Trump's speech earlier today probably qualifies as passing that bar. That is clearly an impeachable offense.
Ilhan Omar is apparently already writing up Articles of Impeachment: https://twitter.com/IlhanMN/status/1346934098384793606
The bar for when incitement to violence loses its constitutionally-protected status is "incitement to imminent lawless act" (from Brandenburg v Ohio). Trump's speech earlier today probably qualifies as passing that bar. That is clearly an impeachable offense.
Ilhan Omar is apparently already writing up Articles of Impeachment: https://twitter.com/IlhanMN/status/1346934098384793606
Would make it easier to pardon him, no?
The pardoning scenario is interesting. He may well be pardoned for federal crimes by Pence or Biden, but Presidential pardons do not extend to state crimes. It’s possible that the NY State AG might have some issues to resolve once he is out of office.
After today, it would be very hard to convince the state AGs to not prosecute him despite any ideas Biden or Pence may have.
I wonder if Pence and the cabinet have already done so, in secret? Apparently it was Pence, not Trump, who ordered in the National Guard [1], and there doesn't seem to be any requirement in 25/4 that Pence and the cabinet inform anyone but the President pro tempore and Speaker that they have done as much.
[1] https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/06/politics/pence-national-guard...
[1] https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/06/politics/pence-national-guard...
Terrible idea. He's out in two weeks. Why stir up his base and invite confirmation bias when he's already out the door? That would be risking a lot to gain very little.
meragrin_(3)
Good luck finding half the cabinet willing to paint a target on their backs for every furious Trump supporter with a gun.
And this is why we don’t negotiate with terrorists...
We may yet find that his cabinet is willing to do so for their own reasons.
You left out a very important part. If the president contests the exercise of the 25th, it gets thrown over to congress, needing a 2/3 majority to become effective. Unlikely. The die-hards will drag it out, until Trump automatically loses the presidency on January 20 and the whole thing becomes moot. Seems like a bit of a waste of time TBH. Even impeachment seems more likely to yield results within the necessary timeframe.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxxv
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxxv
No. The President is out for at least 21 days (more than no minutes in this case) if the supermajority does not materialize.
It's more like the president is out for at most 21 days. The 21-day limit only applies when no vote is taken. If a vote is taken, and fails to get 2/3 in both houses, the entire process completes in the president's favor. Done. You could in theory keep the president out of power simply by failing to have a vote (the "deliberately dropped packet" approach), but there's no provision for voting over and over again on the same question without new cause. You can't just make up such a provision that would be an exception to how anything else in congress (e.g. impeachment) works.
I don't think that would solve a single thing.
All in all, there are much more pressing concerns facing the USA right now than the unimportant fallout from the election, although you'd never know it from turning on the news right now.
All in all, there are much more pressing concerns facing the USA right now than the unimportant fallout from the election, although you'd never know it from turning on the news right now.
A sitting president ignoring election results and inciting a mob to literally attack the Federal government in an attempt to subvert the Constitution is a very pressing issue. It's hard to solve big problems with a government that ceases to abide by its own rules.
Can you point me to any evidence when he literally incited the mob to attack?
People say it was his Tweets but they were censored...
People say it was his Tweets but they were censored...
>when he literally incited the mob to attack?
I said "incited a mob to literally attack." He went up on stage, told them the presidency was being stolen, and urged them to march to the Capitol.
They then marched to the Capitol and literally attacked.
I said "incited a mob to literally attack." He went up on stage, told them the presidency was being stolen, and urged them to march to the Capitol.
They then marched to the Capitol and literally attacked.
Encouraging protests isn’t inciting violence.
But thanks! Good to know all these accusations are just fake news. Just as I assumed. He did tell them to “go home” though... but most fake news media won’t report that.
But thanks! Good to know all these accusations are just fake news. Just as I assumed. He did tell them to “go home” though... but most fake news media won’t report that.
Yep. Told them to go home hours after this insanity began and in the same breath continued to falsely claim the election had been stolen. Whatta guy.
In his minute-long video he spent about 1 second to tell people to go home. The rest was repeating conspiracies, and telling the people rioting that they're special. It's unbelievable.
He ended his speech by telling them to go to the capital and be strong republicans and then after they forcefully invaded the capital building he made a video saying to be nice to the cops and he loves them.
So much value in splitting hairs.
So much value in splitting hairs.
I saw a 1 minute clip of him talking where he spent 50 seconds fueling the fire with "we won this landslide election and it was stolen from us there was no way we lost Georgia" and ten seconds of "but go home and be peaceful"
Are there people here on HN that believe the election was stolen? I haven't seen any evidence, most of the lawsuits haven't borne fruit either. However, I also recognize that there may be blindspots/biases.
I'd really like to hear from anyone who believes this, to present a cogent argument. I promise not to attack. I want to hear the argument from the other side. I also beseech the rest of HN to please refrain from attacking anyone who is doing so.
I'd really like to hear from anyone who believes this, to present a cogent argument. I promise not to attack. I want to hear the argument from the other side. I also beseech the rest of HN to please refrain from attacking anyone who is doing so.
A person can believe anything they want.
If there were evidence of a stolen election, then Trump would have won a number of court cases from one of the MANY judges, mostly ... well, conservative, to use a label ... that he placed his cases in front of.
Anyone can look at these cases and have an understanding of the actual evidence presented, and see, objectively, that there was not significant election or voter tampering, and definitely not significant enough to change the election.
I'm far more concerned about attempts to make it harder to vote before the election - the one drop box per county in TX, for example, then I am that any election was stolen.
If there were evidence of a stolen election, then Trump would have won a number of court cases from one of the MANY judges, mostly ... well, conservative, to use a label ... that he placed his cases in front of.
Anyone can look at these cases and have an understanding of the actual evidence presented, and see, objectively, that there was not significant election or voter tampering, and definitely not significant enough to change the election.
I'm far more concerned about attempts to make it harder to vote before the election - the one drop box per county in TX, for example, then I am that any election was stolen.
I don't believe the election was stolen.
But I will say: it's almost impossible to prove an election has been stolen after the fact with mail-in ballots. Once the outer envelope is removed and destroyed, the ballot is irreversibly anonymous. It's impossible to tell if an anonymous ballot is fraudulent or not -- there's no ability to audit it by contacting the voter.
Mail-in ballots are particularly vulnerable to fraud, something the New York Times correctly worried about back before Trump.[1]. And we just had more mail-in ballots than ever before thanks to Covid.
HN has long been suspicious of voting systems; we all know how often systems are hacked by bad actors. I don't think it's a stretch to think that election tampering is possible, particularly in close elections.
1. https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/07/us/politics/as-more-vote-...
But I will say: it's almost impossible to prove an election has been stolen after the fact with mail-in ballots. Once the outer envelope is removed and destroyed, the ballot is irreversibly anonymous. It's impossible to tell if an anonymous ballot is fraudulent or not -- there's no ability to audit it by contacting the voter.
Mail-in ballots are particularly vulnerable to fraud, something the New York Times correctly worried about back before Trump.[1]. And we just had more mail-in ballots than ever before thanks to Covid.
HN has long been suspicious of voting systems; we all know how often systems are hacked by bad actors. I don't think it's a stretch to think that election tampering is possible, particularly in close elections.
1. https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/07/us/politics/as-more-vote-...
Would you care to provide evidence that mail-in vote fraud has ever been a significant issue in any US election anywhere, at any time, at any level, now or in the past? Because I have never seen any such evidence, and mail-in ballots have been used for over a century.
You’re asking someone to prove something that can’t be proven by design.
No identification requirements, same-day registration, no signature verification, no chain of custody requirements, completely irreversible and unauditable ballots... Partisans have created a system designed for abuse and now are incredulous that anyone question the results.
You’ve effectively deleted the server logs, claimed your system is perfect and impenetrable, and are now asking anyone with questions to prove otherwise.
No identification requirements, same-day registration, no signature verification, no chain of custody requirements, completely irreversible and unauditable ballots... Partisans have created a system designed for abuse and now are incredulous that anyone question the results.
You’ve effectively deleted the server logs, claimed your system is perfect and impenetrable, and are now asking anyone with questions to prove otherwise.
There was an audit in GA of ~20,000 mail-in ballots for signature verification. 8 ballots were adjudicated to have mismatched signatures; another 2 were improperly signed. All 10 of them, when followed up with the purported voter, were found to be valid.
This gives you a rough estimate of voter fraud of having an impact of <0.01% of the election results. The tightest race this year was 0.25% margin--that's a full 20× a reasonable upper bound on the incidence of voter fraud. Fraud doesn't change election results.
On the flip side, some of what you claim about--particularly ID rules--has a real disenfranchising effect on people. Having valid ID isn't an issue if you're someone who drives, but if you're someone who is physically incapable of driving and can't get a driver's license, well, obtaining that ID can be quite difficult. (Even getting a driver's license in my state requires going to a particular building in the hours of 9-5 M-F--sucks if you have an hourly job you can't get time off to get an ID!)
A lot of the rest of what you complain about... [citation needed]. The complaints I've seen about signature verification aren't about requiring a signature on the ballot, it's about requiring a second signature (IIRC, unrelated to you!) to "witness" you doing the ballot yourself. In all the states I'm aware of, the voter is still required to sign the ballot themselves.
This gives you a rough estimate of voter fraud of having an impact of <0.01% of the election results. The tightest race this year was 0.25% margin--that's a full 20× a reasonable upper bound on the incidence of voter fraud. Fraud doesn't change election results.
On the flip side, some of what you claim about--particularly ID rules--has a real disenfranchising effect on people. Having valid ID isn't an issue if you're someone who drives, but if you're someone who is physically incapable of driving and can't get a driver's license, well, obtaining that ID can be quite difficult. (Even getting a driver's license in my state requires going to a particular building in the hours of 9-5 M-F--sucks if you have an hourly job you can't get time off to get an ID!)
A lot of the rest of what you complain about... [citation needed]. The complaints I've seen about signature verification aren't about requiring a signature on the ballot, it's about requiring a second signature (IIRC, unrelated to you!) to "witness" you doing the ballot yourself. In all the states I'm aware of, the voter is still required to sign the ballot themselves.
> On the flip side, some of what you claim about--particularly ID rules--has a real disenfranchising effect on people. Having valid ID isn't an issue if you're someone who drives, but if you're someone who is physically incapable of driving and can't get a driver's license, well, obtaining that ID can be quite difficult. (Even getting a driver's license in my state requires going to a particular building in the hours of 9-5 M-F--sucks if you have an hourly job you can't get time off to get an ID!)
How many people actually exist in this country that have no form of ID? You need it for even getting various utilities in some areas (maybe all?)
Further, why can’t we fix this issue? If it takes 3 hours to get the ID then compensate hourly workers to get it and pass a law requiring jobs to allow time for such a thing. Why because it’s difficult for some we give up on the entire idea of requiring IDs?
How many people actually exist in this country that have no form of ID? You need it for even getting various utilities in some areas (maybe all?)
Further, why can’t we fix this issue? If it takes 3 hours to get the ID then compensate hourly workers to get it and pass a law requiring jobs to allow time for such a thing. Why because it’s difficult for some we give up on the entire idea of requiring IDs?
> How many people actually exist in this country that have no form of ID? You need it for even getting various utilities in some areas (maybe all?)
I don't have hard statistics, but for the photo ID usually advocated for, that number is going to be something like 5-10%.
> Further, why can’t we fix this issue? If it takes 3 hours to get the ID then compensate hourly workers to get it and pass a law requiring jobs to allow time for such a thing. Why because it’s difficult for some we give up on the entire idea of requiring IDs?
I would have no problem supporting voter ID laws if the issue of the difficulty of obtaining voter ID were addressed. However, my experience is that nearly every politician who advocates for voter ID laws is unwilling to address these measures, because their real goal is usually to disenfranchise voters who will vote for the opponent.
I don't have hard statistics, but for the photo ID usually advocated for, that number is going to be something like 5-10%.
> Further, why can’t we fix this issue? If it takes 3 hours to get the ID then compensate hourly workers to get it and pass a law requiring jobs to allow time for such a thing. Why because it’s difficult for some we give up on the entire idea of requiring IDs?
I would have no problem supporting voter ID laws if the issue of the difficulty of obtaining voter ID were addressed. However, my experience is that nearly every politician who advocates for voter ID laws is unwilling to address these measures, because their real goal is usually to disenfranchise voters who will vote for the opponent.
> because their real goal is usually to disenfranchise voters who will vote for the opponent.
This is the crux of the issue. I think there should be a constitutional amendment not only guaranteeing every citizen (felony convinction, in jail, or not!) not only the right to vote, but also requires them to vote. There should be a federal department in charge of finding you and collecting your vote. Too much politics is about getting people alternately mad, apathetic, or lazy, and we need to stop that.
This is the crux of the issue. I think there should be a constitutional amendment not only guaranteeing every citizen (felony convinction, in jail, or not!) not only the right to vote, but also requires them to vote. There should be a federal department in charge of finding you and collecting your vote. Too much politics is about getting people alternately mad, apathetic, or lazy, and we need to stop that.
I agree 100%. Voting should be mandatory.
> Further, why can’t we fix this issue? If it takes 3 hours to get the ID then compensate hourly workers to get it and pass a law requiring jobs to allow time for such a thing. Why because it’s difficult for some we give up on the entire idea of requiring IDs?
Don't assume people in power want to fix the issue. After the Voting Rights Act was gutted in 2013, states began shutting down DMV locations where IDs are issued. In Alabama, 31 of 67 locations were shut down, primarily in Black parts of the state. This was done specifically to disenfranchise voters, and was done in conjunction with pushes for Voter ID laws.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/23/us/politics/voting-rights...
https://www.aclu.org/blog/voting-rights/voting-rights-act/al...
Don't assume people in power want to fix the issue. After the Voting Rights Act was gutted in 2013, states began shutting down DMV locations where IDs are issued. In Alabama, 31 of 67 locations were shut down, primarily in Black parts of the state. This was done specifically to disenfranchise voters, and was done in conjunction with pushes for Voter ID laws.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/23/us/politics/voting-rights...
https://www.aclu.org/blog/voting-rights/voting-rights-act/al...
(Canadian here) For a year or two, I didn't have a valid† form of photo ID. I don't drive, so I either didn't have a license or didn't have a learner's license that hadn't expired. You'd be surprised how far you can get by day-to-day without a legal photo ID. Utilities don't require photo ID, nor does voting (you're mailed a text-based voter registration piece of paper and just… show up and vote). It's nice.
†I did have a photo provincial health card, but oddly enough, it's legally not considered a valid government ID in many contexts. I also had a passport but I had let it expire and didn't renew it for a while. Even when I did renew it, I would not carry my passport around with me, so it would not count as day-to-day photo ID. I have since acquired a provincial photo ID card, which looks like a license, but is a different colour and doesn't permit you to drive (Duh!) These weren't available til a few years ago.
†I did have a photo provincial health card, but oddly enough, it's legally not considered a valid government ID in many contexts. I also had a passport but I had let it expire and didn't renew it for a while. Even when I did renew it, I would not carry my passport around with me, so it would not count as day-to-day photo ID. I have since acquired a provincial photo ID card, which looks like a license, but is a different colour and doesn't permit you to drive (Duh!) These weren't available til a few years ago.
You can't fix the issues around Id because the people pushing for id rules want to use them to disenfranchise people. They won't go for solutions that make it easier to get the id because they don't want certain people to vote
Signing the ballot defeats the purpose of anonymous voting.
What State has you personally sign your ballot?
What State has you personally sign your ballot?
My understanding is the process in a lot of these states is that you put the anonymous ballot in an envelope, then put that envelope in an outer envelope and sign the outer envelope. The idea being that the officials check the signature on the outer envelope, if it's valid and non-duplicated they open it and put the now-anonymous envelope with the sealed ballot in the pile of votes to be counted. This is then opened by the vote counter, and this person who has no idea of the origin is the first to see what the contents of it are.
Ooooohhh. That makes sense. I thought they meant actually signing the ballot itself, which is why I was so confused.
You give up an element of this anonymity and repudiablity when using a mail-in ballot system instead of a truly anonymous in-person voting system. The votes are still tallied anonymously, and it's impossible to post-hoc validate who you voted for, so it serves the anonymity purposes since you can't check whether your investment in buying votes was successful.
Every state that does mail-in voting at all requires a signature. Alabama, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Missouri also require a witness -- Missisipi requires a notary.
Every state that does mail-in voting at all requires a signature. Alabama, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Missouri also require a witness -- Missisipi requires a notary.
I don't know about the US, but mail-in voting should be no different from voting in person (in person verification being the only difference). It must highly traceable in that a registered, actual person can cast only a single vote. Unless tampering happens during vote counting, there is the same keeping of records / audit possibilities.
There are many states that require for instance including a scan of your license on your first mail in vote. Others that make it almost impossible to get a mail ballot in part because of 'identity' requirements
djbebs(2)
> You’ve effectively deleted the server logs, claimed your system is perfect and impenetrable, and are now asking anyone with questions to prove otherwise.
I'm all for auditable, verifiable processes, paper trails and all of that. Thankfully election security officials do work on that! But the people standing up to claim massive fraud are not claiming that because they have evidence, it's because they lost and they are pissed off about it. What they are proposing for remedies is to just throw the whole process out and declare Donald Trump won. Interestingly, they are not challenging any Senate results (Georgia TBD), House results, or even local results.
People are claiming massive fraud because of complete lies. They aren't claiming "something might be fishy here, let's check, recount, etc." Because we did that. All of the swing states recounted their votes, some twice, by hand. They went into the signature verification, observation process, the whole show. No, instead, the crazies go right to the rails and the people who yell the loudest are out there right now showing us exactly what they think of the US Constitution, the law, and this whole process.
I'm all for auditable, verifiable processes, paper trails and all of that. Thankfully election security officials do work on that! But the people standing up to claim massive fraud are not claiming that because they have evidence, it's because they lost and they are pissed off about it. What they are proposing for remedies is to just throw the whole process out and declare Donald Trump won. Interestingly, they are not challenging any Senate results (Georgia TBD), House results, or even local results.
People are claiming massive fraud because of complete lies. They aren't claiming "something might be fishy here, let's check, recount, etc." Because we did that. All of the swing states recounted their votes, some twice, by hand. They went into the signature verification, observation process, the whole show. No, instead, the crazies go right to the rails and the people who yell the loudest are out there right now showing us exactly what they think of the US Constitution, the law, and this whole process.
But they were caught, right? And even then it was (and always is) a small handful of vote. Is there any proof that something like that could be doable at scale, across multiple states, each with 10K+ votes difference?
Exactly. It's proof that these kinds of things are investigated, people do go to jail for it, etc. That makes it even more unlikely that something as huge as DJT alleges could possibly have happened with zero evidence of it showing up.
I have never bothered to look for any specific evidence, therefore it is not true.
I'd still like to see the actual process behind that one county in Michigan that actually got looked. I can't find any information on the alleged "emergency patch" of GA voting systems either. Or an explanation of why several State's judiciaries chimed in on changing election timeframes when constitutionally, that is the perview of the Legislature.
I'm still on the lack of evidence fence but I'm seriously leaning toward the side of "Thou dost protest too much" when the response isn't the most gruelingly painful enumeration of every detail of the process to the rest of the country.
You can throw all your numerical arguments about why it shouldn't matter at me that you want. I'm not buying it.
This is the simplest god blessed process to automate. It's literally a counter. There should not be anywhere near as much opportunity for controversy or hell, even something to hide!
The tech behind it should be absolutely boring, and yet, no reckoning. No public release of auditable source code, or machine images.
I don't give a damn who won. I give a damn that someone questioned it, and heaven and hell were not moved in an attempt to answer the question.
Not trying to Gish Gallop mind, I just think the integrity of the system is important enough to warrant keeping the process transparent and dirt simple enough, your State should be able to account for it to the rest of the nation. Voting is not a joke, and I don't even like entertaining the possibility that some irregularities could even exist to explain.
I'm still on the lack of evidence fence but I'm seriously leaning toward the side of "Thou dost protest too much" when the response isn't the most gruelingly painful enumeration of every detail of the process to the rest of the country.
You can throw all your numerical arguments about why it shouldn't matter at me that you want. I'm not buying it.
This is the simplest god blessed process to automate. It's literally a counter. There should not be anywhere near as much opportunity for controversy or hell, even something to hide!
The tech behind it should be absolutely boring, and yet, no reckoning. No public release of auditable source code, or machine images.
I don't give a damn who won. I give a damn that someone questioned it, and heaven and hell were not moved in an attempt to answer the question.
Not trying to Gish Gallop mind, I just think the integrity of the system is important enough to warrant keeping the process transparent and dirt simple enough, your State should be able to account for it to the rest of the nation. Voting is not a joke, and I don't even like entertaining the possibility that some irregularities could even exist to explain.
What does "that actually got looked" mean? Can you elaborate on this Michigan county?
Isn't it the case that when votes are hand counted they match pretty darn close the "machine without auditable source code" results? As someone from outside the US the entire US election process seems like a sad joke but I guess those machines were bought under some sort of commercial contract from some sort of private company and presumably as part of that deal the source code isn't available to the public. But it seems that when the machine says X won and you like X then it's great and when it says Y won and you don't like Y then it's a faulty/irregular process? Is "someone questioned it" really a bar? Isn't there always someone who will question everything?
I'm sure the tech behind the machines that count the votes is actually quite boring. Next time you vote for someone I guess make sure you vote for someone who is going to stipulate in the contract that the source code is available to the public? Is that gonna shut up the people yelling conspiracy?
Isn't it the case that when votes are hand counted they match pretty darn close the "machine without auditable source code" results? As someone from outside the US the entire US election process seems like a sad joke but I guess those machines were bought under some sort of commercial contract from some sort of private company and presumably as part of that deal the source code isn't available to the public. But it seems that when the machine says X won and you like X then it's great and when it says Y won and you don't like Y then it's a faulty/irregular process? Is "someone questioned it" really a bar? Isn't there always someone who will question everything?
I'm sure the tech behind the machines that count the votes is actually quite boring. Next time you vote for someone I guess make sure you vote for someone who is going to stipulate in the contract that the source code is available to the public? Is that gonna shut up the people yelling conspiracy?
Fucking great comment.
The appearance of impropriety is assumed to be impropriety by half the viewers. Unless proven otherwise.
The appearance of impropriety is assumed to be impropriety by half the viewers. Unless proven otherwise.
So why did everyone fight like hell to prevent this transparency? Shouldn’t all of these states been eager to use federal money to do signature audits and hand recounts?
What is the difference from a in person casted ballot? Isn't it also anonymous?
There are many more eyes on the custody of that ballot between it being cast, and it being counted.
Mail-in ballots are sent out to people who request them. You would need such a massive identity fraud campaign to move the needle on an election that I can’t believe you would be unable to find any evidence of it anywhere in 50 states. There are no signs to indicate further investigation is needed. Also importantly, there are enough audits in place to catch the whiff of a foul election that can be litigated with evidence discovery.
You don't need to do it in all 50 states, just in a few key swing states where the votes were close enough. But even then you still need a quite big identity fraud to pull this off.
The solution to that is different though. You need to make sure that swing states matter less
> You would need such a massive identity fraud campaign to move the needle on an election
What was the final delta in GA? 11k votes or so? Are you sure it is impossible to move the needle when there are these razor thin margins?
I don’t know so I’m asking.
What was the final delta in GA? 11k votes or so? Are you sure it is impossible to move the needle when there are these razor thin margins?
I don’t know so I’m asking.
You're going to collect sufficient private personal information about and successfully impersonate 12,000 citizens without anyone noticing? The burden of proof is not on me here. It's an absurd challenge. You can't just hand wave it away. That difficulty is by design. That's the system working.
Even if you throw out or flip Georgia, the math still doesn't work out for electoral votes.
So now you have to move the goalposts to saying that there was massive voter fraud in every battleground state.
Let's be clear, every state certified their votes. This includes states with republican leadership. And every court case brought against the election results has failed.
Even if you accept the idea that in many ways it is difficult or impossible to audit the results (I don't agree), the only evidence that has been presented against the result are absurd conspiracy theories and patent falsehoods as well as testimony from people with an axe to grind.
In other cases we have seen (Gore) there was an actually agreed upon issue. Hanging chads on the ballots were real and verifiable. This is not the case today.
Also let us be clear that this has not happened before. It is not before the current administration that "massive voter fraud" has entered the conversation. It was presented in 2016 despite Trumps win (amusing). It is presented now for no other reason than to distract, raise money, and serve the fragile ego of the President.
So now you have to move the goalposts to saying that there was massive voter fraud in every battleground state.
Let's be clear, every state certified their votes. This includes states with republican leadership. And every court case brought against the election results has failed.
Even if you accept the idea that in many ways it is difficult or impossible to audit the results (I don't agree), the only evidence that has been presented against the result are absurd conspiracy theories and patent falsehoods as well as testimony from people with an axe to grind.
In other cases we have seen (Gore) there was an actually agreed upon issue. Hanging chads on the ballots were real and verifiable. This is not the case today.
Also let us be clear that this has not happened before. It is not before the current administration that "massive voter fraud" has entered the conversation. It was presented in 2016 despite Trumps win (amusing). It is presented now for no other reason than to distract, raise money, and serve the fragile ego of the President.
So we’ve moved from there is no fraud
To there could have been fraud but not enough to win a state
To, ok, maybe one state but not enough states
No dude. No amount of potential fraud is acceptable.
To there could have been fraud but not enough to win a state
To, ok, maybe one state but not enough states
No dude. No amount of potential fraud is acceptable.
So every election since the founding of our country is invalid? Nice try but you’re a bad actor and you know it. Actual instances of fraud that have been found have been dealt with and surprise, they didn’t change the outcome of this election. If you truly believe that there is massive voter fraud on an unprecedented scale you are quite literally refusing to live in reality and nobody can help you now.
My point is quite clearly that not only are the allegations being made about the election results being invalid are absurd but that even if you accept parts of it unless you accept all of it it doesn’t even have an impact on the outcome.
My point is quite clearly that not only are the allegations being made about the election results being invalid are absurd but that even if you accept parts of it unless you accept all of it it doesn’t even have an impact on the outcome.
> Mail-in ballots are particularly prone to fraud, something the New York Times worried about back before Trump.
This is mischaracterization of the article.
1. The title that shows up in the browser bar (the HTML <title>) is: "As More Vote by Mail, Faulty Ballots Could Impact Elections".
2. The title as shown on the page is "Error and Fraud at Issue as Absentee Voting Rises". So, clearly, the article speaks about both fraudulent and faulty ballots. In my view, the article is not well organized. The two ideas are too fluidly mixed.
So, with this context in mind, let's discuss two paragraphs from the article:
* Except, of course, in extremely close races.
This is mischaracterization of the article.
1. The title that shows up in the browser bar (the HTML <title>) is: "As More Vote by Mail, Faulty Ballots Could Impact Elections".
2. The title as shown on the page is "Error and Fraud at Issue as Absentee Voting Rises". So, clearly, the article speaks about both fraudulent and faulty ballots. In my view, the article is not well organized. The two ideas are too fluidly mixed.
So, with this context in mind, let's discuss two paragraphs from the article:
In 2008, 18 percent of the votes in the nine states likely to decide this
year’s presidential election were cast by mail. That number will almost
certainly rise this year, and voters in two-thirds of the states have already
begun casting absentee ballots. In four Western states, voting by mail is the
exclusive or dominant way to cast a ballot.
The trend will probably result in more uncounted votes, and it increases the
potential for fraud. While fraud in voting by mail is far less common than
innocent errors, it is vastly more prevalent than the in-person voting fraud
that has attracted far more attention, election administrators say.
* Except, of course, in extremely close races.
The same thing applies for an in person vote. Once they've voted and left, you can't tell anymore. One person could have submitted all of the votes for the day, and you couldn't te the difference.
This must mean that no in person votes should count at all!
This must mean that no in person votes should count at all!
So what you're saying is that it's possible that there were fraudulent ballots in support of Trump?
Many people look at these cases and see they were not allowed to be heard. How many of Gore's supporting court cases were tossed for lack of standing etc?
> How many of Gore’s supporting court cases were tossed for lack of standing etc?
Fewer (and similarly with Bush’s — both filed a number of lawsuits in the 2000 election), but then, the legal basis of the cases was different.
Its not really anyone outside of the Trump campaign’s (and their legal team’s) fault that the Trump campaign filed an unusually large number of lawsuits making claims that were not justiciable, independently of whether the claimed facts were true.
Fewer (and similarly with Bush’s — both filed a number of lawsuits in the 2000 election), but then, the legal basis of the cases was different.
Its not really anyone outside of the Trump campaign’s (and their legal team’s) fault that the Trump campaign filed an unusually large number of lawsuits making claims that were not justiciable, independently of whether the claimed facts were true.
The difference between 2000 and 2020 election cases is that most of the latter are based on wild, speculative legal theories. The last few filed really start to look crazier than sovereign citizen bullshit theories.
The Trump campaign filed several lawsuits prior to the election challenging various election procedures--which is how it's supposed to be done--and found mixed success, sometimes winning, sometimes losing. After an election, there is very little legal recourse--even Bush v Gore made it clear that challenging election procedures should be done before an election without very good reason. In the case of 2000, those challenges were largely about various recount provisions, and even then, these were filed very quickly. But in 2020, a lot of the cases weren't filed until previous ones had failed (laches! laches!), and even tried the novel legal theory of arguing the entire election should be thrown out because of a challenge to long-enacted laws (laches! laches!). The lawyers involved changed too--the competent conservative lawyers didn't want to sign on to Trump's crazy legal theories, but Trump apparently decided to not listen to anyone who told him he had no remaining viable recourse.
It is worth pointing out that the defendants in one of the suits have filed a motion to impose sanctions on Trump's lawyers. Amusingly, they ask for a fine of all the money raised for the legal suits, although they are unlikely to get it.
The Trump campaign filed several lawsuits prior to the election challenging various election procedures--which is how it's supposed to be done--and found mixed success, sometimes winning, sometimes losing. After an election, there is very little legal recourse--even Bush v Gore made it clear that challenging election procedures should be done before an election without very good reason. In the case of 2000, those challenges were largely about various recount provisions, and even then, these were filed very quickly. But in 2020, a lot of the cases weren't filed until previous ones had failed (laches! laches!), and even tried the novel legal theory of arguing the entire election should be thrown out because of a challenge to long-enacted laws (laches! laches!). The lawyers involved changed too--the competent conservative lawyers didn't want to sign on to Trump's crazy legal theories, but Trump apparently decided to not listen to anyone who told him he had no remaining viable recourse.
It is worth pointing out that the defendants in one of the suits have filed a motion to impose sanctions on Trump's lawyers. Amusingly, they ask for a fine of all the money raised for the legal suits, although they are unlikely to get it.
> Are there people here on HN that believe the election was stolen?
There are. One sent me to this [1] resource earlier. I do not endorse this source, and have not manually verified their claims myself.
If anyone else would like to check the source, that would be good, I intend to manually check their claims myself later, but don't have time now.
[1] https://hereistheevidence.com/
Edit: I would ask anyone checking the source to not use the tool that the source provides, for obvious reasons.
Also, we should probably see if the datasets provided are available elsewhere.
There are. One sent me to this [1] resource earlier. I do not endorse this source, and have not manually verified their claims myself.
If anyone else would like to check the source, that would be good, I intend to manually check their claims myself later, but don't have time now.
[1] https://hereistheevidence.com/
Edit: I would ask anyone checking the source to not use the tool that the source provides, for obvious reasons.
Also, we should probably see if the datasets provided are available elsewhere.
I clicked on one in the list randomly. #38 8,000 voter application submitted by couple on behalf of homeless and the dead - https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/pair-charged-with-v...
A man who tried to run for mayor in Hawthorne is among two people charged in a voter fraud case in which thousands of fraudulent voter registration applications were allegedly submitted on behalf of homeless people, the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office announced Tuesday.
It doesn't even allege that any votes were submitted, the article was published Nov 17 so the investigation must have been going on for months.
Clicked on #237: Posted confidential voter information on website - https://www.washoecounty.us/voters/elections/20_gen_ab_ev_re...
That's the official website for Washoe County and the page is a voter turnout report so yeah obviously it's evidence of fraud (/sarcasm).
#356: Count the fraudalent [sic] ballots https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eH3FpIy3TE&feature=youtu.be
It's just a youtube video of voting officials talking at a desk or something.
That website is evidence of nothing more than someone with too much time on their hands and ideology to push.
A man who tried to run for mayor in Hawthorne is among two people charged in a voter fraud case in which thousands of fraudulent voter registration applications were allegedly submitted on behalf of homeless people, the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office announced Tuesday.
It doesn't even allege that any votes were submitted, the article was published Nov 17 so the investigation must have been going on for months.
Clicked on #237: Posted confidential voter information on website - https://www.washoecounty.us/voters/elections/20_gen_ab_ev_re...
That's the official website for Washoe County and the page is a voter turnout report so yeah obviously it's evidence of fraud (/sarcasm).
#356: Count the fraudalent [sic] ballots https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eH3FpIy3TE&feature=youtu.be
It's just a youtube video of voting officials talking at a desk or something.
That website is evidence of nothing more than someone with too much time on their hands and ideology to push.
Sounds about right. I didn't have time to get past the landing page when I pulled it up.
I'm kinda regretting wasting everyone's time now.
I'm kinda regretting wasting everyone's time now.
If it makes you feel better, I thought it was interesting to see how thin the “evidence” is. In some cases there appears to be no evidence, just the “possibility” that there could be some and that there should be an investigation to find it.
I should point out there is a substantial amount of evidence that there is no notable voter fraud. This evidence helps justify not wasting more time and giving oxygen to this conspiracy.
I should point out there is a substantial amount of evidence that there is no notable voter fraud. This evidence helps justify not wasting more time and giving oxygen to this conspiracy.
I think your comment is probably the most deceptive I've ever seen on HN :(
"It's just a youtube video of voting officials talking at a desk or something."
The discussion they're having at the desk is about fraud. It's a vote counting operation. The counting volunteers say they found a pile of ballots with identical signatures and the woman running the vote is telling them to ignore it because it's not their role to flag this or investigate it. In a vote audit.
The video description text has a transcript of what's going on.
The female counter asks, “So when we’re done with the audit, there’s still the opportunity to challenge the fact that we have multiple ballots with the very same signature?” she asks. “I don’t know if ‘challenge’ is the right word,” the SOS official says ... “And again, we know that you have a concern with this precinct,” she tells them, explaining, “That’s not your role at this very moment,”
A video of counting volunteers discussing fraud they detected and being explicitly told to drop it is very far from "just talking at a desk or something".
"It's just a youtube video of voting officials talking at a desk or something."
The discussion they're having at the desk is about fraud. It's a vote counting operation. The counting volunteers say they found a pile of ballots with identical signatures and the woman running the vote is telling them to ignore it because it's not their role to flag this or investigate it. In a vote audit.
The video description text has a transcript of what's going on.
The female counter asks, “So when we’re done with the audit, there’s still the opportunity to challenge the fact that we have multiple ballots with the very same signature?” she asks. “I don’t know if ‘challenge’ is the right word,” the SOS official says ... “And again, we know that you have a concern with this precinct,” she tells them, explaining, “That’s not your role at this very moment,”
A video of counting volunteers discussing fraud they detected and being explicitly told to drop it is very far from "just talking at a desk or something".
So, I am certain, _somewhere_ in this whole election _someone_ surely stole some votes. I can almost guarantee that on such a big number of people voting that at least some number of votes were stolen, probably by representatives from both parties. What I strongly doubt is the fact that this was widespread, organized or the numbers of these frauds were in any meaningful way impacting the election.
The difference between parties was not insignificant. In other election cycles you had much lower differences but the other party conceded to the process ( looking at 2000).
So this whole thing is, IMO, predicated on one side simply refusing to admit defeat.
The difference between parties was not insignificant. In other election cycles you had much lower differences but the other party conceded to the process ( looking at 2000).
So this whole thing is, IMO, predicated on one side simply refusing to admit defeat.
The evidence is just laughably bad. But there is a lot of it and if you wanted to explain why each claim is either meaningless or outright false would take a lot of time. I guess that's the point.
It's called the Gish gallop after a creationist who used this technique during debates: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop
I suspected that would be the case, but as you pointed out, they have many claims.
At work currently, so haven't really looked at it. Probably will tonight, maybe make a post refuting it.
At work currently, so haven't really looked at it. Probably will tonight, maybe make a post refuting it.
I doubt it's worth your time. You can't refute a conspiracy theory with facts.
A common response I've received when refuting part or all of various conspiracy theories, young Earth creationist, or flat Earth type logic: "It doesn't matter that that's not true, it still could have been true."
Like the possibility of a truth is all they need to believe in it. And then shifting goal posts.
Like the possibility of a truth is all they need to believe in it. And then shifting goal posts.
I can only imagine how much worse this all would be if the Presidential election had actually been close. We should be thankful that only an incomprehensibly vast conspiracy could possibly have "stolen" the election.
PenisBanana(2)
You can't refute those deep in, but you can help protect those who could be swayed by lots of "data" and a fancy web page.
I may or may not get around to it, but I could see it being worthwhile.
I may or may not get around to it, but I could see it being worthwhile.
Respectfully disagree. I don't think you can.
People are reading a website like this because they are looking for confirmation of what they already feel must be true.
People are reading a website like this because they are looking for confirmation of what they already feel must be true.
I agree mostly.
I partially just want something to link to if I happen to see it linked in the wild again, it rubs me the wrong way to see it uncontested in a conversation.
I figure that at least that way new people aren't getting sucked in when they click thinking "Well, I should check the other sides view."
I partially just want something to link to if I happen to see it linked in the wild again, it rubs me the wrong way to see it uncontested in a conversation.
I figure that at least that way new people aren't getting sucked in when they click thinking "Well, I should check the other sides view."
Thanks for sharing. While I agree with eli, this is an insight into what the other side is looking at. And the "other side" is definitely a spectrum of people -- ones who are open to reason and others that are absolutely not.
PenisBanana(1)
not a supporter, but i like that the author has taken the time to distinguish what they consider "verified" and the rest they consider "unverified". quite a few of the 80 "illegal votes" accusations here bear very big numbers - would be nice to crowdsource an effort to provide the other side to each of them.
unfortunately, like i suspect many here, i'm not particularly inclined to spend time going thru them, particular the ~30% of those that link to youtube and twitter accounts.
Brandolini's law, aka the bullshit asymmetry principle comes to mind - "The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude larger than to produce it."
unfortunately, like i suspect many here, i'm not particularly inclined to spend time going thru them, particular the ~30% of those that link to youtube and twitter accounts.
Brandolini's law, aka the bullshit asymmetry principle comes to mind - "The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude larger than to produce it."
Well, the fact that the site lists stats like number of court cases with evidentiary hearings blocked without a companion stat of cases allowed to proceed is evidence of bias.
I think it's also worth considering that none of this evidence has been through any sort of judicial review -- at no point in the Trump campaign's barrage of lawsuits did they litigate any election fraud, only procedural questions around the inclusion or exclusions of ballots.
Yes.
Also consider that 45 is not the typical poor defendant, who cannot afford adequate representation in court. He is (theoretically) a billionaire, and can afford $1K/hour constitutional law experts.
The fact that 45 and his crack team of lawyers (more like, "on crack", right?) have failed so completely tells you there just is no actual evidence there.
Also consider that 45 is not the typical poor defendant, who cannot afford adequate representation in court. He is (theoretically) a billionaire, and can afford $1K/hour constitutional law experts.
The fact that 45 and his crack team of lawyers (more like, "on crack", right?) have failed so completely tells you there just is no actual evidence there.
There is no argument here.
The fact is that you should never let electronic voting machines ever in the first place. I went crazy the first time I saw them in the US long time ago and said: "this is the end of democracy"
You should only count physical ballots in front of someone that represents all the parties.
As an engineer I can not trust them. There are 20 different ways I can cheat using those machines, from network hacks to software that self modifies.
The US election system is a joke, with no national ID card.
The worst thing is that they are trying to import those defective systems into Europe.
The fact is that you should never let electronic voting machines ever in the first place. I went crazy the first time I saw them in the US long time ago and said: "this is the end of democracy"
You should only count physical ballots in front of someone that represents all the parties.
As an engineer I can not trust them. There are 20 different ways I can cheat using those machines, from network hacks to software that self modifies.
The US election system is a joke, with no national ID card.
The worst thing is that they are trying to import those defective systems into Europe.
Re: "There is no argument here." can you clarify what you mean? Are you making an argument that electronic voting machines resulted in an incorrect election outcome?
Are there any voting machines that actually SOLELY tabulate electronically that don't have a paper record?
I believe they all print out a ballot or receipt that records the vote and those are what are counted/scanned and or can be in verifications/recounts
(maybe i can't think of an example let me know if so i would also agree that not having a paper record is bad but i dont think it exists).
I believe they all print out a ballot or receipt that records the vote and those are what are counted/scanned and or can be in verifications/recounts
(maybe i can't think of an example let me know if so i would also agree that not having a paper record is bad but i dont think it exists).
Yes there are. In 2016 I voted in Indiana on a voting machine that was all-electronic. I didn't put my vote down on paper, and the machine didn't produce a paper record for me to examine. After I voted, I asked if I could have a record of my vote, and was told I couldn't.
In 2020, in the same city, I voted by marking a paper ballot and inserting it into a machine which scanned it and output it into a sealed box.
In 2020, in the same city, I voted by marking a paper ballot and inserting it into a machine which scanned it and output it into a sealed box.
wow that's bad I thought it was all gone but looks like a couple luddites. i just found this source [1] sounds like LA lacks it statewide yikes. sounds like Indiana's law says not until 2029... sarcastically, you know, because it takes that long (more likely they have no funding and refuse to raise taxes/take fed money).
https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/voting...
https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/voting...
Next-day correction: during the 2016 election, I voted in a different city (about an hour's drive away, but in the same state) from the city that I voted in 2020. I was attending college in the city where I currently live and vote, but at the time I was still registered to vote in my hometown.
What good is a receipt if a user can literally “correct” votes in a silent “adjudication” process and just print the “corrected” numbers?
I don’t buy a lot of the claims going on here, but what does a receipt do if you don’t trust the machine? Or more importantly the operator?
I don’t buy a lot of the claims going on here, but what does a receipt do if you don’t trust the machine? Or more importantly the operator?
I know in parts of Virginia as late as 2014 it was electronic only. I am not sure about more recently.
Nothing you just stated is evidence.
If we are at the point that we have to have "evidence" (in the legal sense) that fraud has occurred in order to resolve the outcome of an election, then the water is under the bridge. Voting process and procedures should all be designed to build and strengthen transparency, to fortify the process against actual fraud and vague assertions of fraud that can't be trivially disproved.
We find ourselves in a situation where the processes have been constructed in such a way that there is suspicion about the outcome and logistical difficulties at disproving what should be by design trivially disprovable, this just creates a terrible feedback loop of mistrust. The argument that we don't need better controls until actual widespread fraud can be proved in a court of law seems mistaken to me. We need the controls to keep us from getting to the point where a forensic analysis is needed to discern what happened during an election.
I realize that there are legitimate concerns that better voting controls can result in "voter suppression" but our haphazard approach to voting controls and process transparency has left us in a place where large numbers of people are suspicious and there doesn't seem to be any effective way to counter those suspicions in part due to the haphazard controls.
We find ourselves in a situation where the processes have been constructed in such a way that there is suspicion about the outcome and logistical difficulties at disproving what should be by design trivially disprovable, this just creates a terrible feedback loop of mistrust. The argument that we don't need better controls until actual widespread fraud can be proved in a court of law seems mistaken to me. We need the controls to keep us from getting to the point where a forensic analysis is needed to discern what happened during an election.
I realize that there are legitimate concerns that better voting controls can result in "voter suppression" but our haphazard approach to voting controls and process transparency has left us in a place where large numbers of people are suspicious and there doesn't seem to be any effective way to counter those suspicions in part due to the haphazard controls.
I'd argue we need evidence that there was a fair election, not evidence that there was fraud. If there's non-trivial ambiguity, there's room for fraud, and people will likely enough exploit it.
Stupid example: What if only Republicans were allowed to count ballots, and the only result you got was a number of votes that they told you, and they threw away all of the records. It would be impossible to get evidence, but you wouldn't need any evidence to rightfully distrust the result.
Purely electronic voting systems are analogous, though it differs in the details and degrees of things.
Stupid example: What if only Republicans were allowed to count ballots, and the only result you got was a number of votes that they told you, and they threw away all of the records. It would be impossible to get evidence, but you wouldn't need any evidence to rightfully distrust the result.
Purely electronic voting systems are analogous, though it differs in the details and degrees of things.
Arguments are distinctly different to evidence/facts.
I agree about the need for paper ballots. I disagree with the indefensibly broad claim that without a national ID card, it is a joke.
But it's a shame there's no national ID, because then both sides would have to stop griping about disenfranchisement and fraud.
I posted this response in another comment, but I'll post it here because I've seen so much misinformation on the topic. This website, https://ballotpedia.org/Voting_methods_and_equipment_by_stat..., shows voting methods by state, and you'll see that nearly all of them produce a voter-verifiable paper trail.
Here are the list of states that have at least some electronic voting withOUT a paper trail:
Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas
7 of those states were won by Trump, 1 by Biden, and none of those states were even within 15 percentage point margin except for Texas, which Trump won by 5 and a half percent.
Here are the list of states that have at least some electronic voting withOUT a paper trail:
Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas
7 of those states were won by Trump, 1 by Biden, and none of those states were even within 15 percentage point margin except for Texas, which Trump won by 5 and a half percent.
> believe the election was stolen?
I don't "believe" but I do understand why people would. Every time someone questions the result, their questioning is seen as motivated and the premise that there has already been a satisfactory investigation is assumed. This is awkward because it would be a lot easier to talk people down if there was in fact an investigation that resolved concerns to show them.
> I'd really like to hear from anyone who believes this, to present a cogent argument.
As I said, I don't "believe." But I'd certainly like an explanation of the two videos (one in Georgia and one of a thumb drive handoff) and perhaps some reasonable handling of the claims by observers that they weren't effectively permitted to do their jobs (asked to leave, prevented from seeing the ballots, challenging ballots that were ignored, etc.)
[0] https://apelbaum.wordpress.com/2020/12/03/the-georgia-ballot...
[1] https://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2020/12/04/that-is-some-handof...
I don't "believe" but I do understand why people would. Every time someone questions the result, their questioning is seen as motivated and the premise that there has already been a satisfactory investigation is assumed. This is awkward because it would be a lot easier to talk people down if there was in fact an investigation that resolved concerns to show them.
> I'd really like to hear from anyone who believes this, to present a cogent argument.
As I said, I don't "believe." But I'd certainly like an explanation of the two videos (one in Georgia and one of a thumb drive handoff) and perhaps some reasonable handling of the claims by observers that they weren't effectively permitted to do their jobs (asked to leave, prevented from seeing the ballots, challenging ballots that were ignored, etc.)
[0] https://apelbaum.wordpress.com/2020/12/03/the-georgia-ballot...
[1] https://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2020/12/04/that-is-some-handof...
Is there any source that has a bunch of the claims and refutations to it?
Just saying fraud doesn't exist doesn't help calm the outrage of those who believe it was stolen. Also based on how partisan the impeachment was it is likely people don't trust the government to have any sense of accuracy and merely attribute it to partisan lines.
The strategy of acknowledging what someone says and then responding to it often calms down difficult interpersonal conflicts. I think the same applies here.
We understand you believe "A", we do not believe that because of proof "B".
Instead the approach taken is largely ad hominem's which only escalate things further.
Just saying fraud doesn't exist doesn't help calm the outrage of those who believe it was stolen. Also based on how partisan the impeachment was it is likely people don't trust the government to have any sense of accuracy and merely attribute it to partisan lines.
The strategy of acknowledging what someone says and then responding to it often calms down difficult interpersonal conflicts. I think the same applies here.
We understand you believe "A", we do not believe that because of proof "B".
Instead the approach taken is largely ad hominem's which only escalate things further.
Two things:
1) You can't reason yourself out of a position that you didn't reason yourself into. They don't care that the data is bad, they care that it supports their worldview.
2) The folowing remains true now as it did more than 70 years ago: “Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”
― Jean-Paul Sartre
1) You can't reason yourself out of a position that you didn't reason yourself into. They don't care that the data is bad, they care that it supports their worldview.
2) The folowing remains true now as it did more than 70 years ago: “Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”
― Jean-Paul Sartre
They’re out there if you want to search for them.
I went through three or four of the statistical analyses that purported to show the election results were practically impossible.
They were trivially junk. E.g. one compared the voting rate in 2020 and 2016 but used votes to registered voters in 2020 but votes to eligible voters in 2016.
The others were similarly laughable, but no body cared when I posted this.
Others says it better than I can, but the people who believe this stuff believe it because they want to, not because it makes sense. Facts and reason didn’t get them to this point and facts and reason isn’t going to pull them back.
I went through three or four of the statistical analyses that purported to show the election results were practically impossible.
They were trivially junk. E.g. one compared the voting rate in 2020 and 2016 but used votes to registered voters in 2020 but votes to eligible voters in 2016.
The others were similarly laughable, but no body cared when I posted this.
Others says it better than I can, but the people who believe this stuff believe it because they want to, not because it makes sense. Facts and reason didn’t get them to this point and facts and reason isn’t going to pull them back.
Have any links handy?
They’re out there if you want to search for them.
I didn't downvote you, but that's the reason I asked: I have tried searching, and it's not easy to find comprehensive debunking of these things.
Heck, it's difficult to even find the original court documentation for many cases. I find news articles, but I want the source material, so that I can talk about it to others without any reporters coloring the court cases, especially as I talk about these court cases with other people who think there is loads of legitimate evidence.
So... if you can help me search for it, or find it, I would really appreciate it.
Heck, it's difficult to even find the original court documentation for many cases. I find news articles, but I want the source material, so that I can talk about it to others without any reporters coloring the court cases, especially as I talk about these court cases with other people who think there is loads of legitimate evidence.
So... if you can help me search for it, or find it, I would really appreciate it.
I do not believe the election was stolen. But I also don't believe we had perfect election integrity either. In my mind any system involving hundreds of millions of people is bound to have some bad actors, mistakes, fraud, etc. It's important to acknowledge when and where it happens, and how to improve. But claiming any given election had near perfect integrity raises some alarm bells with me at least.
This is just your cognitive bias away from an extreme position. Actually election integrity in the US is pretty close to perfect. 10s of cases out of 100s of millions/low billions of votes cast. This has be exhaustively studied, MIT has produced papers.
The closest thing to a widespread problem is voter suppression, where states administer elections in regionally uneven ways to suppress one party's turnout. This is predominately against black citizens in the south after Shelby v Holder.
The closest thing to a widespread problem is voter suppression, where states administer elections in regionally uneven ways to suppress one party's turnout. This is predominately against black citizens in the south after Shelby v Holder.
>10s of cases out of 100s of millions/low billions of votes cast
I know of at least 2 people in my friend group who voted in their "home states" that they haven't lived in for 4+ years. I don't know if this is considered voter fraud, but if it is, it certainly undermines integrity of this claim.
In any case, at the macro level, there isn't reason to believe one party participates in this more than the other.
I know of at least 2 people in my friend group who voted in their "home states" that they haven't lived in for 4+ years. I don't know if this is considered voter fraud, but if it is, it certainly undermines integrity of this claim.
In any case, at the macro level, there isn't reason to believe one party participates in this more than the other.
We don't identify voters and we removed chain of custody on ballots. Instead we put unsecured boxes on street corners to collect ballots and put them in the mail. We eliminated signature validation. The list goes on. I have no idea who got the most legitimate votes, but neither does anyone else.
>The closest thing to a widespread problem is voter suppression, where states administer elections in regionally uneven ways to suppress one party's turnout. This is predominately against black citizens in the south after Shelby v Holder.
I agree with you 100% but that just means every election is illegitimate.
>The closest thing to a widespread problem is voter suppression, where states administer elections in regionally uneven ways to suppress one party's turnout. This is predominately against black citizens in the south after Shelby v Holder.
I agree with you 100% but that just means every election is illegitimate.
One important thing missing here that even without signature verification you can only cast votes for people registered to vote. That really isn't very fraudy in my book.
> even without signature verification you can only cast votes for people registered to vote. That really isn't very fraudy in my book.
No, that definitely is fraud.
No, that definitely is fraud.
The other thing that Democrats and organisations like the ACLU have been campaigning to stop (with some success) is the removal of people who're no longer living in that state from the electoral register. Along with shut down any attempt to detect whether people have apparently voted in more than one state. This gives a nice pool of "registered" voters who are not in fact eligible to vote and probably don't even realise they're still registered there.
When you say a “nice” pool, how big is that pool? Are there many examples of it being exploited on a scale that affects election outcomes?
I agree there is a risk that bad actors could exploit this vulnerability, but there is also a risk purging voters prevents legitimate voters. That is especially concerning when the purges come from a government controlled by one party in an area heavily populated by voters of another party.
So it is not cut and dried. There are reasonable arguments on both sides, but my personally calculation is it is less likely someone gets away with finding people who have moved and casting votes on their behalf. It is more likely that a bunch of politicians purge voting rolls in districts that lean the other direction. Especially as we have 150 years of evidence of the latter but few examples of the former.
I agree there is a risk that bad actors could exploit this vulnerability, but there is also a risk purging voters prevents legitimate voters. That is especially concerning when the purges come from a government controlled by one party in an area heavily populated by voters of another party.
So it is not cut and dried. There are reasonable arguments on both sides, but my personally calculation is it is less likely someone gets away with finding people who have moved and casting votes on their behalf. It is more likely that a bunch of politicians purge voting rolls in districts that lean the other direction. Especially as we have 150 years of evidence of the latter but few examples of the former.
The risk of purging legitimate voters on a scale that could actually affect the election results is substantially overstated, from what I can tell. In particular, there was a claim which went viral after the 2016 election that this had actually happened in the swing states whose (award-winning journalist) author clearly knew it couldn't work as advertised. It compared the number of entries on the purge lists with the victory margin, pointed out it was smaller, and claimed this proved the vote was rigged that way. There were two huge issues - the first is that many people genuinely wouldn't have been eligible to vote in those states, and the second is that in at least one and probably all three states being on the purge list wouldn't actually stop the people from voting if they did turn up at a polling station, and all three were necessary for Trump to win. (People are only actually removed from the register if they don't vote for a while after being added.) The author clearly knew this, because buried in the article was an odd little disclaimer about how what happened when people were added to the purge lists varied from state to state without any further details. The ACLU and the press in general also like to run articles claiming every name removed is a "suppressed vote".
I think that may have been after just a few years of not being able to purge voters due to lawsuits from the ACLU, so there is definitely a big enough pool of registered voters who are likely no longer living in that state to potentially swing elections at least some of the time. If I remember rightly, some recent key swing states have a lot of outward migration compared to the victory margins.
I think that may have been after just a few years of not being able to purge voters due to lawsuits from the ACLU, so there is definitely a big enough pool of registered voters who are likely no longer living in that state to potentially swing elections at least some of the time. If I remember rightly, some recent key swing states have a lot of outward migration compared to the victory margins.
You can only run credit card charges against someone with a credit card. How much credit card fraud is there in the United States?
One difference here is that everything I need to know to vote for someone is public record. Your name, address, political affiliation, whether or not you have voted in recent elections, etc. are all public record. Your credit card information is not.
One difference here is that everything I need to know to vote for someone is public record. Your name, address, political affiliation, whether or not you have voted in recent elections, etc. are all public record. Your credit card information is not.
1. You don't swipe your vote every time you go to the gas station
2. You only get to vote once. Unlike credit cards.
The comparison is such an insane false analogy as to render the rest of your comment meaningless.
You clearly have no clue how the system actually works if you think that comparison is reasonable at all. Go read up on why voting is secure instead of Googling more doggrel that fits your confirmation bias.
2. You only get to vote once. Unlike credit cards.
The comparison is such an insane false analogy as to render the rest of your comment meaningless.
You clearly have no clue how the system actually works if you think that comparison is reasonable at all. Go read up on why voting is secure instead of Googling more doggrel that fits your confirmation bias.
I agree with the logic of your argument, but I disagree with your last paragraph. Please let me appeal to your better nature.
[deleted]
Google doesn't exactly help people find what doesn't already speak to their biases anymore, and hasn't for a long while.
Your post shows how much disinformation has propagated.
> We don't identify voters and we removed chain of custody on ballots.
Source? Voters are identified by signature (and in some places voter ID). Re: chain of custody, as far as I'm aware, states generally require representatives from both major parties (plus independents) to be present when ballots are moved or opened. Since states generally have the power to conduct their elections as they deem appropriate, finding a national source is impossible, but I invite you to find me an example where such a chain of custody was violated.
Mail-in-ballots do not subvert this chain of custody [1].
> Instead we put unsecured boxes on street corners to collect ballots and put them in the mail.
Drop boxes are locked with keys and are monitored with video surveillance. Sometimes, people set fire to ballot boxes, but when this happens security is tightened [2] [3]. In any case, the small number of ballots damaged by arson would not change the outcome of an election.
> We eliminated signature validation.
This is not true. Give us a source. The closest thing to "eliminating signature validation" is giving voters the chance to fix signatures [4]. "Eliminating signature validation" is a false claim that Trump has spread [5].
> I have no idea who got the most legitimate votes, but neither does anyone else.
The fact is Biden got the most legitimate votes. End of story. Any other claim is refusing to accept the overwhelming evidence that there was no significant fraud. That's not to say that the vote count is accurate, but all evidence shows that any inaccuracies would not have changed the outcome of the election.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/article/fact-checking-mail-in-voting...
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/26/us/elections/in-boston-so...
[3] https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/10/20/us/trump-biden-elect...
[4] https://apnews.com/article/pennsylvania-election-2020-pittsb...
[5] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/08/11/trumps-la...
> We don't identify voters and we removed chain of custody on ballots.
Source? Voters are identified by signature (and in some places voter ID). Re: chain of custody, as far as I'm aware, states generally require representatives from both major parties (plus independents) to be present when ballots are moved or opened. Since states generally have the power to conduct their elections as they deem appropriate, finding a national source is impossible, but I invite you to find me an example where such a chain of custody was violated.
Mail-in-ballots do not subvert this chain of custody [1].
> Instead we put unsecured boxes on street corners to collect ballots and put them in the mail.
Drop boxes are locked with keys and are monitored with video surveillance. Sometimes, people set fire to ballot boxes, but when this happens security is tightened [2] [3]. In any case, the small number of ballots damaged by arson would not change the outcome of an election.
> We eliminated signature validation.
This is not true. Give us a source. The closest thing to "eliminating signature validation" is giving voters the chance to fix signatures [4]. "Eliminating signature validation" is a false claim that Trump has spread [5].
> I have no idea who got the most legitimate votes, but neither does anyone else.
The fact is Biden got the most legitimate votes. End of story. Any other claim is refusing to accept the overwhelming evidence that there was no significant fraud. That's not to say that the vote count is accurate, but all evidence shows that any inaccuracies would not have changed the outcome of the election.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/article/fact-checking-mail-in-voting...
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/26/us/elections/in-boston-so...
[3] https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/10/20/us/trump-biden-elect...
[4] https://apnews.com/article/pennsylvania-election-2020-pittsb...
[5] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/08/11/trumps-la...
Pennsylvania Supreme Court rules ballots can't be rejected based on signature comparisons.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/23/pennsylvania-court-...
Your link about mail in ballots says they are secure because of measures like signature validation, except we got rid of that.
Not that it should matter, but I'm not a Trump supporter. He is a war criminal as far as I'm concerned.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/23/pennsylvania-court-...
Your link about mail in ballots says they are secure because of measures like signature validation, except we got rid of that.
Not that it should matter, but I'm not a Trump supporter. He is a war criminal as far as I'm concerned.
> Your link about mail in ballots says they are secure because of measures like signature validation, except we got rid of that.
I was not accurate, but you were also not accurate. Pennsylvania did not "get rid" of signature verification for absentee voting; it never had signature validation in the first place. States have the power to hold elections in the manner of their choosing, and of the last 28 years, Republicans had trifecta control of the legislature for twelve [1]. They had the full power to amend the election code as they saw fit, but they chose not to.
In any case, the absence of signature validation still does not prove fraud. The purpose of signature validation is to "prove" is the person who cast the ballot is the person who registered to vote. To take advantage of a lack of signature validation, an attacker would have to:
1. Find people who are registered to vote, but who don't intend to vote -- even in person.
2. Acquire their ballot by either:
2-a. Re-register them under a new address controlled by the adversary (which notifies the voter).
2-b. Steal their ballot from their mailbox (and the voter may become suspicious if they don't get a ballot).
3. Fill out their ballot and mail it in.
Steps 1 and 2 each very difficult to do without raising suspicion. Step 3 is nearly impossible to do by a single person for a large number of votes. The vote difference in Pennsylvania was 81660 votes. So if Biden had 81661 fraudulent votes, then Trump should be the winner.
Let's assume that if more than a hundred people notice that their ballots were missing/voter registration changed, then there would be an investigation and the attacker would be exposed. In other words, the attacker must flip ~80,000 votes, while only alerting suspicion 100 times. Their success rate per ballot must be therefore greater than (1 - 81661 / 100) = 99.878%. A thousand? That would still require a success rate of 98.775% per ballot.
How many reports are there of missing ballots in Pennsylvania? I can't even find one person claiming such a thing, much less a hundred or a thousand.
[1] https://ballotpedia.org/Party_control_of_Pennsylvania_state_...
I was not accurate, but you were also not accurate. Pennsylvania did not "get rid" of signature verification for absentee voting; it never had signature validation in the first place. States have the power to hold elections in the manner of their choosing, and of the last 28 years, Republicans had trifecta control of the legislature for twelve [1]. They had the full power to amend the election code as they saw fit, but they chose not to.
In any case, the absence of signature validation still does not prove fraud. The purpose of signature validation is to "prove" is the person who cast the ballot is the person who registered to vote. To take advantage of a lack of signature validation, an attacker would have to:
1. Find people who are registered to vote, but who don't intend to vote -- even in person.
2. Acquire their ballot by either:
2-a. Re-register them under a new address controlled by the adversary (which notifies the voter).
2-b. Steal their ballot from their mailbox (and the voter may become suspicious if they don't get a ballot).
3. Fill out their ballot and mail it in.
Steps 1 and 2 each very difficult to do without raising suspicion. Step 3 is nearly impossible to do by a single person for a large number of votes. The vote difference in Pennsylvania was 81660 votes. So if Biden had 81661 fraudulent votes, then Trump should be the winner.
Let's assume that if more than a hundred people notice that their ballots were missing/voter registration changed, then there would be an investigation and the attacker would be exposed. In other words, the attacker must flip ~80,000 votes, while only alerting suspicion 100 times. Their success rate per ballot must be therefore greater than (1 - 81661 / 100) = 99.878%. A thousand? That would still require a success rate of 98.775% per ballot.
How many reports are there of missing ballots in Pennsylvania? I can't even find one person claiming such a thing, much less a hundred or a thousand.
[1] https://ballotpedia.org/Party_control_of_Pennsylvania_state_...
You have a very "Mission Impossible" view of what vote fraud would have to look like. The biggest flaw is that you are assuming it would be an organized centrally planned act by some act/actors instead of just lots of people all over the place nudging things in whatever direction they want at any of a number of steps in the process.
Two simple examples: If I were a ballot harvester I could fill in any blanks that someone left on their ballot. If I were a postal worker I could just lose some mail if someone had the wrong sign in their yard.
Two simple examples: If I were a ballot harvester I could fill in any blanks that someone left on their ballot. If I were a postal worker I could just lose some mail if someone had the wrong sign in their yard.
There are very obvious centrally planned election stealing schemes - gerrymandering and voter suppression, along with the discrepancy between electoral college votes and actual population
Just because they're legal doesn't make them less bad.
Just because they're legal doesn't make them less bad.
Without centralized coordination, there is very little incentive for an individual to engage in voter fraud -- there is no payoff (because an individual creating ~100 votes would not meaningfully change an election's result) and the risk is too high (it's a felony with penalty of jail time and large fines).
So given the above, do you believe that 50 people each independently decided to create 1,600 votes for Biden? Or 100 people each independently created 800 votes? A thousand people each created 80? 80,000 each created one?
Remember again that all of these people have near zero incentive to commit voter fraud. Each person would also have to keep their secret and not brag -- something very hard for most humans to do.
> If I were a ballot harvester I could fill in any blanks that someone left on their ballot.
Ballot harvesting is illegal in PA [1]. Also, ballots envelopes are generally sealed by the voter and election workers would notice if a seal is broken and not count the vote [2].
[1] https://www.publicsource.org/what-is-ballot-harvesting-and-w...
[2] https://6abc.com/naked-ballots-pennsylvania-pa-voting-in/696...
> If I were a postal worker I could just lose some mail if someone had the wrong sign in their yard.
Ballots are tracked, and then the postal worker would rely on the voter not checking the status of their ballot. If there is a pattern, then the postal worker would likely be arrested or fined, so in all likelihood each postal worker could only "lose" one or two ballots.
So given the above, do you believe that 50 people each independently decided to create 1,600 votes for Biden? Or 100 people each independently created 800 votes? A thousand people each created 80? 80,000 each created one?
Remember again that all of these people have near zero incentive to commit voter fraud. Each person would also have to keep their secret and not brag -- something very hard for most humans to do.
> If I were a ballot harvester I could fill in any blanks that someone left on their ballot.
Ballot harvesting is illegal in PA [1]. Also, ballots envelopes are generally sealed by the voter and election workers would notice if a seal is broken and not count the vote [2].
[1] https://www.publicsource.org/what-is-ballot-harvesting-and-w...
[2] https://6abc.com/naked-ballots-pennsylvania-pa-voting-in/696...
> If I were a postal worker I could just lose some mail if someone had the wrong sign in their yard.
Ballots are tracked, and then the postal worker would rely on the voter not checking the status of their ballot. If there is a pattern, then the postal worker would likely be arrested or fined, so in all likelihood each postal worker could only "lose" one or two ballots.
You keep framing things as if I believe that only Biden votes would be fraudulent. I believe Republicans are just as capable of fraud as Democrats.
>Remember again that all of these people have near zero incentive to commit voter fraud.
The stakes are control over the most powerful government in the history of the planet being on your team vs the other team. And literally Hitler Putin puppet/Communist dementia man was on the ballot. The stakes couldn't be higher.
>Ballots are tracked, and then the postal worker would rely on the voter not checking the status of their ballot. If there is a pattern, then the postal worker would likely be arrested or fined, so in all likelihood each postal worker could only "lose" one or two ballots.
Your understanding of average human behavior is very different than mine.
>Remember again that all of these people have near zero incentive to commit voter fraud.
The stakes are control over the most powerful government in the history of the planet being on your team vs the other team. And literally Hitler Putin puppet/Communist dementia man was on the ballot. The stakes couldn't be higher.
>Ballots are tracked, and then the postal worker would rely on the voter not checking the status of their ballot. If there is a pattern, then the postal worker would likely be arrested or fined, so in all likelihood each postal worker could only "lose" one or two ballots.
Your understanding of average human behavior is very different than mine.
> Your understanding of average human behavior is very different than mine.
I promise you postal workers are well aware of the implications of losing mail, and especially losing ballots. Postal workers have been prosecuted for dumping mail and ballots in the past, and I'm sure the USPS reinforces the severity of such a crime in their trainings.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-wdny/pr/postal-worker-arrested-...
I promise you postal workers are well aware of the implications of losing mail, and especially losing ballots. Postal workers have been prosecuted for dumping mail and ballots in the past, and I'm sure the USPS reinforces the severity of such a crime in their trainings.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-wdny/pr/postal-worker-arrested-...
But no one has ever, once (AFAIK) gotten caught doing that. Surely if this was the kind of widespread thing you're imagining SOMEONE would have put a camera on one of those boxes and caught someone?
I mean, just think about it: this is completely impractical. To "steal" any one election you need to swing thousands of ballots. Each box holds a few dozen ballots at a time at most. You'd be talking about a huge crime spree to manage to collect and resubmit all those ballots.
And yet... we've never seen it happen. The simple truth is that stealing elections doesn't happen because it's too expensive vs. just winning elections with more persuasive arguments.
I mean, just think about it: this is completely impractical. To "steal" any one election you need to swing thousands of ballots. Each box holds a few dozen ballots at a time at most. You'd be talking about a huge crime spree to manage to collect and resubmit all those ballots.
And yet... we've never seen it happen. The simple truth is that stealing elections doesn't happen because it's too expensive vs. just winning elections with more persuasive arguments.
I don’t like the idea of saying that this isn’t fraud because no one‘s ever been caught doing it.
Everyone, every state, every side, every ideologue should be jumping up and down for 100% transparency. and if anyone saying we really have that they are a liar.
Everyone, every state, every side, every ideologue should be jumping up and down for 100% transparency. and if anyone saying we really have that they are a liar.
"Transparency" isn't free, though. You take those boxes away and now a bunch of people who rely on them for easy access can't vote. Mail takes too long (and is subject to the same criticism). People with long commutes can't be at home on election day. People with hourly jobs can't take the time off. People without cars can't get there. And all those demographics have a partisan skew.
So when you say "transparency", in the absence of any proof of real fraud, is what other people hear as "suppression". We don't think you care about voter fraud at all, we think you just want more republican votes.
Is that not true? Then come to the table in good faith and find a compromise. There are many (e.g. voting day holidays, guarded drop boxes, etc...). Republicans have blocked them every time they come up.
So when you say "transparency", in the absence of any proof of real fraud, is what other people hear as "suppression". We don't think you care about voter fraud at all, we think you just want more republican votes.
Is that not true? Then come to the table in good faith and find a compromise. There are many (e.g. voting day holidays, guarded drop boxes, etc...). Republicans have blocked them every time they come up.
Thank you. I feel the same way.
I vote in every election. There are problems with many elections, especially ones for US President. Those problems are baked into the system we've established as a nation. States run their own elections. States elect US Presidents and not citizens.
I don't think states could coordinate a conspiracy to change citizen votes to steer elections one way or another. Too many moving parts, too many people. It is fair one state has one set of rules that differ from another? Yes. It is the way the USA is built.
It frustrates me to no end that a group of people say, "The election had no issues" just as it frustrates me when someone says, "The election was stolen." Those thoughts are always perpetuated by those who lead political parties.
I vote in every election. There are problems with many elections, especially ones for US President. Those problems are baked into the system we've established as a nation. States run their own elections. States elect US Presidents and not citizens.
I don't think states could coordinate a conspiracy to change citizen votes to steer elections one way or another. Too many moving parts, too many people. It is fair one state has one set of rules that differ from another? Yes. It is the way the USA is built.
It frustrates me to no end that a group of people say, "The election had no issues" just as it frustrates me when someone says, "The election was stolen." Those thoughts are always perpetuated by those who lead political parties.
> It frustrates me to no end that a group of people say, "The election had no issues" just as it frustrates me when someone says, "The election was stolen."
I think this is a strawman. Can you find me a source of a prominent* Democrat that said that this election had no issues? Most of the time, people who support the election's outcome mean that there was no fraud significant enough to change the outcome, or that this election had less fraud/was more secure than a previous election.
On the other hand, when Trump says the election was stolen [1] (along with some Congressional Republicans), he means that the outcome should have been him winning.
*Prominent being: US Senator, US Representative, Secretary of State, state election official, state governor, DNC leadership.
[1] https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/13469288825958850...
I think this is a strawman. Can you find me a source of a prominent* Democrat that said that this election had no issues? Most of the time, people who support the election's outcome mean that there was no fraud significant enough to change the outcome, or that this election had less fraud/was more secure than a previous election.
On the other hand, when Trump says the election was stolen [1] (along with some Congressional Republicans), he means that the outcome should have been him winning.
*Prominent being: US Senator, US Representative, Secretary of State, state election official, state governor, DNC leadership.
[1] https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/13469288825958850...
I voted you up but I must disagree.
I don't think the election had no issues, and few would claim so. Let's start with: Where the hell is my federal election holiday? And it just goes downhill from there.
I don't think the election had no issues, and few would claim so. Let's start with: Where the hell is my federal election holiday? And it just goes downhill from there.
If you look for it, just about every state has had some anomalies that were noted by the officials. It's all boring.
All of it has been on a scale that wouldn't affect the outcome of elections. For example in Georgia 2 ballots were submitted in the names of dead people. In Colorado they are investigating non-matching signatures on a few hundred ballots.
This kind of stuff is routine, and happens in every election. Of course it isn't perfect, but its a decent enough system that has worked well in 100s of countries across centuries
All of it has been on a scale that wouldn't affect the outcome of elections. For example in Georgia 2 ballots were submitted in the names of dead people. In Colorado they are investigating non-matching signatures on a few hundred ballots.
This kind of stuff is routine, and happens in every election. Of course it isn't perfect, but its a decent enough system that has worked well in 100s of countries across centuries
It's all just like numerology or p-hacking. When you look super close and try hundreds of different tricks, some of them eventually show signs of working, but that doesn't mean you found something relevant.
I've seen countless videos of people taking the analysis done by some charlatan on Youtube, then applying the exact same calculation to a bunch of other Republican counties and getting the exact same anomalies.
I've seen countless videos of people taking the analysis done by some charlatan on Youtube, then applying the exact same calculation to a bunch of other Republican counties and getting the exact same anomalies.
Are there a lot of people claiming the election was near perfect?
I see people saying there isn’t evidence of wide-spread fraud sufficient to overturn the results of the election.
There do seem to be a lot of people making the mistake of trying to cast this as black and white, totally fraudulent or totally perfect. But that never made sense.
(Edit: typo)
I see people saying there isn’t evidence of wide-spread fraud sufficient to overturn the results of the election.
There do seem to be a lot of people making the mistake of trying to cast this as black and white, totally fraudulent or totally perfect. But that never made sense.
(Edit: typo)
Coming out and saying that you think the election stolen gets you labeled a conservative nutter. So wise commenters won't say that, instead they will do what you've noted. Imply that folks are saying the election was perfect, and then say that they think there might have been some "imperfections" going on.
That way the listener doesn't automatically correctly categorized their point of view as nuttery, but is drawn into listening longer out of decorum. And the speaker doesn't suffer a loss of reasonableness for "wanting the truth".
That way the listener doesn't automatically correctly categorized their point of view as nuttery, but is drawn into listening longer out of decorum. And the speaker doesn't suffer a loss of reasonableness for "wanting the truth".
Yes, this is part of a known playbook for people who want to seem credible while stoking fear, uncertainty, and doubt.
What you state about "wise people framing things a particular way" being part of a known playbook for spreading Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt, is also a well known tactic for dismissing the concerns of genuinely concerned, yet inconveniently numerous people.
Not that it matters, but if you're going to try to call someone out or discredit them, try not to in the same stroke do the same thing.
Not that it matters, but if you're going to try to call someone out or discredit them, try not to in the same stroke do the same thing.
Their concerns are illegitimate and are only used to attempt to overturn the election. We are under no obligation to humor their concern trolling.
I had to look it up:
concern trolling: the action or practice of disingenuously
expressing concern about an issue in order to undermine or
derail genuine discussion. (from Oxford Languages via Google)> if you're going to try to call someone out or discredit them, try not to in the same stroke do the same thing.
I don't follow your logic.
Here's the context. x86_64Ubuntu wrote:
> Coming out and saying that you think the election stolen gets you labeled a conservative nutter. So wise commenters won't say that, instead they will do what you've noted. Imply that folks are saying the election was perfect, and then say that they think there might have been some "imperfections" going on. > > That way the listener doesn't automatically correctly categorized their point of view as nuttery, but is drawn into listening longer out of decorum. And the speaker doesn't suffer a loss of reasonableness for "wanting the truth".
In response, I wrote:
> Yes, this is part of a known playbook for people who want to seem credible while stoking fear, uncertainty, and doubt.
In doing so, I pointed out a pattern that involves a rhetorical technique.
With this context, perhaps you can explain what you mean by "try not to in the same stroke do the same thing?"
I don't follow your logic.
Here's the context. x86_64Ubuntu wrote:
> Coming out and saying that you think the election stolen gets you labeled a conservative nutter. So wise commenters won't say that, instead they will do what you've noted. Imply that folks are saying the election was perfect, and then say that they think there might have been some "imperfections" going on. > > That way the listener doesn't automatically correctly categorized their point of view as nuttery, but is drawn into listening longer out of decorum. And the speaker doesn't suffer a loss of reasonableness for "wanting the truth".
In response, I wrote:
> Yes, this is part of a known playbook for people who want to seem credible while stoking fear, uncertainty, and doubt.
In doing so, I pointed out a pattern that involves a rhetorical technique.
With this context, perhaps you can explain what you mean by "try not to in the same stroke do the same thing?"
I totally read that context wrong. Serves me right for posting in a hurry. I must have mentally kludged both of your posts together. What I thought was being communicated was an assertion that people who do call out things in non-dismissable as nuttery ways outright are really just nutters trying to use politeness to avoid getting dismissed out of hand with the malicious intent to spread fear uncertainty, and disinformation.
With the kebashed context in mind, I think I was in a sense pointing out the perceived (on my part) dehumanization of the hypothetical speaker who could just genuinely be someone with concerns who simply desires additional scrutiny or scrutiny, closer to the topic at hand.
I apologize for the misunderstanding. Teaches me to post from the hip.
With the kebashed context in mind, I think I was in a sense pointing out the perceived (on my part) dehumanization of the hypothetical speaker who could just genuinely be someone with concerns who simply desires additional scrutiny or scrutiny, closer to the topic at hand.
I apologize for the misunderstanding. Teaches me to post from the hip.
> "Not that it matters..."
It seems to me this phrase fits the bill for a "thought-terminating cliché". [1] Do you agree?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_cliché
It seems to me this phrase fits the bill for a "thought-terminating cliché". [1] Do you agree?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_cliché
> is also a well known tactic for dismissing the concerns of genuinely concerned, yet inconveniently numerous people.
Yes. This rhetoric can be used for all kinds of purposes, whether well-intentioned, altruistic, noble or selfish, corrupt, deceitful and so on.
Yes. This rhetoric can be used for all kinds of purposes, whether well-intentioned, altruistic, noble or selfish, corrupt, deceitful and so on.
> What you state about "wise people framing things a particular way" being part of a known playbook ...
You used quotes, but what you quoted is not a quote from me, nor anyone earlier in the thread.
Also, I didn't write "wise".
You used quotes, but what you quoted is not a quote from me, nor anyone earlier in the thread.
Also, I didn't write "wise".
Many people say so.
Your comment is very brief and ambiguous to me. Can you elaborate please?
Are you saying you agree or disagree with my statement?
Are you saying you agree or disagree with my statement?
Sorry, I could have been more clear. It's another Trumpism. He's not saying these crazy things, but he's heard it from many other people. It's another way to promote conspiracy theories with plausible deniability.
For example: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/76278182654903091...
For example: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/76278182654903091...
Does this mean we're not going to discuss the 'appeal to popularity' fallacy that is associated with "Many people say so..."? :P
I'm torn. On one hand, I wish I got the joke sooner, because I needed a laugh today. On the other, I'm glad I missed the context that would have made the joke clear. Overall, I'm thankful I can read HN comments without hearing Trump's voice reading the words.
By playbook, I mean this is a subtler version of the straw man fallacy.
> In my mind any system involving hundreds of millions of people
in a popular vote elections even a hundred thousand votes would be just a rounding error. In US electoral system just a few counties going wrong way could turn the elections, ie. theoretically "some bad actors, mistakes, fraud, etc." would be enough to do it. Add to that the facts like Dominion Voting Systems (whose machines were used in some of those key states and counties if i remember correctly) being a client of SolarWinds ... and one can have more than enough for a good conspiracy theory. At least i have :)
in a popular vote elections even a hundred thousand votes would be just a rounding error. In US electoral system just a few counties going wrong way could turn the elections, ie. theoretically "some bad actors, mistakes, fraud, etc." would be enough to do it. Add to that the facts like Dominion Voting Systems (whose machines were used in some of those key states and counties if i remember correctly) being a client of SolarWinds ... and one can have more than enough for a good conspiracy theory. At least i have :)
Put simply, I don't know what to believe. As an IT security worker, I have absolutely no faith in the election since voting required the use of hackable electronic voting machines.
We need to restore trust in the system. An idiot needs to be able to understand and audit it. Until that happens, there will always be people who think it's rigged, and politicians will always exploit that.
We need to restore trust in the system. An idiot needs to be able to understand and audit it. Until that happens, there will always be people who think it's rigged, and politicians will always exploit that.
> I have absolutely no faith in the election since voting required the use of hackable electronic voting machines.
This is mostly not true. See https://ballotpedia.org/Voting_methods_and_equipment_by_stat... . Almost every state produces a voter-readable paper trail for all votes.
This is mostly not true. See https://ballotpedia.org/Voting_methods_and_equipment_by_stat... . Almost every state produces a voter-readable paper trail for all votes.
The 2000 elections were most probably stolen, but Al Gore played the safer card and accepted defeat. Since then I don't see how anyone can trust the process.
Joe Kennedy almost certainly stole the 1960 election for his son. Nixon knew this but decided it wasn't worth the national grief to fight it.
How so? The vote differential from FL was clearly within the margin of error of the counting methods, but that only suggests the possibility of a counting error, not a steal.
Gore lost because of the poor design of the Florida butterfly ballot. The official 537 vote margin is a political expedience.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_presidentia...
> About 19,000 ballots were spoiled because of overvotes (two votes in the same race), compared to 3000 in 1996.[18]:215–221 According to a 2001 study in the American Political Science Review, the voting errors caused by the butterfly ballot cost Gore the election: "Had PBC used a ballot format in the presidential race that did not lead to systematic biased voting errors, our findings suggest that, other things equal, Al Gore would have won a majority of the officially certified votes in Florida."
And yet the protests then were level-headed, largely peaceful, and fully justifiable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_presidentia...
> About 19,000 ballots were spoiled because of overvotes (two votes in the same race), compared to 3000 in 1996.[18]:215–221 According to a 2001 study in the American Political Science Review, the voting errors caused by the butterfly ballot cost Gore the election: "Had PBC used a ballot format in the presidential race that did not lead to systematic biased voting errors, our findings suggest that, other things equal, Al Gore would have won a majority of the officially certified votes in Florida."
And yet the protests then were level-headed, largely peaceful, and fully justifiable.
Are you suggesting that the design was made with the intention to take votes from Gore? Because that would be necessary to call it a "stolen" election. I acknowledge the possibility that the outcome was in error.
I'm not saying it was explicitly intentional but it isn't believable nobody on the election commission was aware of the alignment issues from previous elections. It is either straight up incompetence or willful neglect. Either way, the will of the people wasn't acted upon.
Doesn't need to be intentional, the fact that when the mistake was shown after the fact, the best they could do is invalidate tens of thousands of votes, which very likely were for one candidate, shows how the win was stolen from him.
This argument only works if you ignore the voters who were improperly purged from the voter rolls for having the same or similar names as convicted felons.
In addition, there was a big movement that claimed 2004 election was stolen from Kerry. Several books were published on it in fact. See this article from Politico, which covered it again in light of the Trump claims.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/12/19/2004-kerry...
I don't think this election was stolen, but in 2004, I did think there were oddities which were swept under the rug.
I don't think this election was stolen, but in 2004, I did think there were oddities which were swept under the rug.
razius(1)
"no faith in the election since voting required the use of hackable electronic voting machines."
The voting machines produce a paper ballot, which can be recounted and audited.
The elections were fine.
100% of the issue is derived from Trump's attempt to sow doubt, and of course, his enablers.
The voting machines produce a paper ballot, which can be recounted and audited.
The elections were fine.
100% of the issue is derived from Trump's attempt to sow doubt, and of course, his enablers.
Did you take any comfort from the Georgia hand-count?
I have seen this article [1] being thrown around among my conservative friends, and while I do not have the statistics background to understand the detailed analysis, it seems to suggest some strange behavior around the reporting of mail-in votes. Not exactly evidence, but something that may have warranted investigation at the time.
[1] https://votepatternanalysis.substack.com/p/voting-anomalies-...
edit: I'm looking for folks to give their take on this analysis since I nowhere qualified. A good summary is the final two sections of the article.
[1] https://votepatternanalysis.substack.com/p/voting-anomalies-...
edit: I'm looking for folks to give their take on this analysis since I nowhere qualified. A good summary is the final two sections of the article.
This type of stuff was posted on HN and pretty well debunked / rejected by most commentors: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25031344
My comment and some discussion on it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25031443
My comment and some discussion on it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25031443
The vote spikes are simple - early voting ballots getting reported [1]. Biden encouraged his supporters to vote early. Trump did the opposite. Accordingly, the early/absentee votes are ~90% for Biden. Due to the way they get counted they come in larger lumps than day-of vote counting. As far as I can tell the rest of the post is statistical gish-gallop with some graphs and equations to make it all look more convincing.
I also want to say that the sources of reported votes isn't a mystery, and the author could easily have found out that they were early votes if they had wanted to. Either they didn't check, or didn't want to inform people of those very relevant facts.
[1]: https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-wi-pa-mi-vote-s...
I also want to say that the sources of reported votes isn't a mystery, and the author could easily have found out that they were early votes if they had wanted to. Either they didn't check, or didn't want to inform people of those very relevant facts.
[1]: https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-wi-pa-mi-vote-s...
I don't believe it was stolen.
I think we should be able to see how our vote was recorded.
The whole system is based on trust. Right now that trust is being threatened (eroded?). Since there isn't a way to individually inspect the system, we have to rely on the word of others to validate it.
The government doesn't always act in the best interest of the populace and often outright lies to it. This begs the question, should we take their word for it?
I think we should be able to see how our vote was recorded.
The whole system is based on trust. Right now that trust is being threatened (eroded?). Since there isn't a way to individually inspect the system, we have to rely on the word of others to validate it.
The government doesn't always act in the best interest of the populace and often outright lies to it. This begs the question, should we take their word for it?
That is impossible to square with a secret vote.
The tried and tested way to hold free and fair elections are paper ballots, simple boxes with obvious seals, and observers from all parties as well as international ones.
The tried and tested way to hold free and fair elections are paper ballots, simple boxes with obvious seals, and observers from all parties as well as international ones.
Sure but these people had zero problem trusting the system when they won in 2016 by a very similar margin. Also, the "government" who is overseeing the election is controlled by the very same party that lost. I would understand conspiracies if Obama's administration was in control, but when you can't believe the words of Republican officials like those in Georgia, then there is nothing that can convince such a person.
Become a poll watcher. Pretty much every single vote is viewed by an election worker (or three), one Republican, one Democrat. Sometimes other parties.
And this year many counts were filmed and streamed live because some Republicans complained that 6 feet was too far away with COVID - that challenge got thrown out in court.
And this year many counts were filmed and streamed live because some Republicans complained that 6 feet was too far away with COVID - that challenge got thrown out in court.
It's not about whether the 'election was stolen' and the court cases weren't in regard to 'fraud'. The court cases were on whether or not the federal government had the right to audit the state votes. The court cases decided that no, you can't. The states have all the power to run their own elections on their own accord, fraud be damned.
For all the fraud allegations thrown around by Trump and his allies, his lawyers have consistently refused to allege fraud in their court proceedings. See for example https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/18/us/politics/trump-giulian...
I haven't had confidence in most elections in a long time. Nothing seems worse about this election than, say, Ohio in 2004, but I like the idea of adopting a system where there is much more thorough verifiability and ease of auditing.
I’ve seen the Georgia video with the black containers placed under a table. After all the poll watchers were asked to leave, the table is moved out of the way and ballots were pulled out of the containers. Nobody has explained that from what I’ve read and it doesn’t really make any sense why it was hidden and why was it pulled out after all the witnesses were asked to leave at the end of the night?
Oh, that's easy. All the stuff the republicans said is contradicted by the democrats, the video shows normal ballot handling procedures, the investigation is still open so you can't see the report, but somebody somewhere filed a sworn affidavit that everything is A-OK and we can proceed with the plan to remove trump.
i believe so, but for reasons different from Trump's arguments.
the key point is that the media was extremely supportive of Biden and not of Trump. the margin of victory was small in key states. so if the media was presenting an even-handed position and not doommongering the whole time, it seems quite probable that Trump would have won.
so the argument is that the media elite has manipulated the population into doing something the population would not have done by itself. this is not certain of course, but it is a reasonable hypothesis.
hence the US is not a democracy but a country controlled by a tiny media elite which has cohered around its preferred candidate.
the key point is that the media was extremely supportive of Biden and not of Trump. the margin of victory was small in key states. so if the media was presenting an even-handed position and not doommongering the whole time, it seems quite probable that Trump would have won.
so the argument is that the media elite has manipulated the population into doing something the population would not have done by itself. this is not certain of course, but it is a reasonable hypothesis.
hence the US is not a democracy but a country controlled by a tiny media elite which has cohered around its preferred candidate.
[deleted]
Listen to the tape of the Trump call to Georgia, or better yet this Georgia election official's point-by-point takedown of Trump's claims: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/04/us/politics/trump-georgia...
There simply is no reality based reason to believe that the election was stolen, certainly not in any consistently logical belief system (e.g. the 2016 Electoral College results were almost exactly the same in the opposite direction).
There simply is no reality based reason to believe that the election was stolen, certainly not in any consistently logical belief system (e.g. the 2016 Electoral College results were almost exactly the same in the opposite direction).
I think there had been some frauds, but even without any fraud (from either side), the result would have been the same.
[deleted]
What I don't get is why anyone would believe that the Presidential election was stolen, yet not also believe that down-ballot races were also stolen.
Oh, right, because they weren't.
Yes, Dems, barely managed to flip the Senate. That that was just a +3 / +1 affair. But...
Look at all the House races. Repubs won all the red-leaning districts, nearly all the purple ones, and even some light-blue ones. They did better than expected in all states including the ones where 45 lost in the Presidential race.
If you're going to steal the election of the President via a comprehensive, super-sneaky, multi-state conspiracy, why the fuck would you also not also steal House and Senate seats? That makes no goddamn sense. You're going to alter ballots, inject fake ballots, etc., etc., etc., and not bother with the Congress and local elections too?
Moronic. Totally moronic. How fucking stupid do you have to be to believe that only the Presidential race was stolen, but everything else was fine.
Who out there is a supporter of 45, that believes the Dems don't hate Moscow Mitch nearly as much as 45 himself? Or Louie Gomert, Devin Nunes, Matt Gates, or the other lackeys? "Yeah, let's steal the election for Biden, but then leave in place all the other assholes. Great idea! That will work out perfectly!"
Morons.
Oh, right, because they weren't.
Yes, Dems, barely managed to flip the Senate. That that was just a +3 / +1 affair. But...
Look at all the House races. Repubs won all the red-leaning districts, nearly all the purple ones, and even some light-blue ones. They did better than expected in all states including the ones where 45 lost in the Presidential race.
If you're going to steal the election of the President via a comprehensive, super-sneaky, multi-state conspiracy, why the fuck would you also not also steal House and Senate seats? That makes no goddamn sense. You're going to alter ballots, inject fake ballots, etc., etc., etc., and not bother with the Congress and local elections too?
Moronic. Totally moronic. How fucking stupid do you have to be to believe that only the Presidential race was stolen, but everything else was fine.
Who out there is a supporter of 45, that believes the Dems don't hate Moscow Mitch nearly as much as 45 himself? Or Louie Gomert, Devin Nunes, Matt Gates, or the other lackeys? "Yeah, let's steal the election for Biden, but then leave in place all the other assholes. Great idea! That will work out perfectly!"
Morons.
Here's what I can say from where I sit as someone who did not vote in this election.
For the sake of intellectual honesty, I'll post this on my main account. Strong odds it doesn't go well, but transparency is worth striving for.
I have seen [3,4,5]quite a bit of evidence that there was at least some fraud taking place, and that the evidence of that fraud has been suppressed. Whether the fraud was enough to change results, no clue. I have also seen people attacking the character of everyone presenting or talking about said evidence, rather than addressing the actual content of the claims.
The above is concerning, but it doesn't lead me to believe an election was stolen. However, the narrative that's being played out is that Joe Biden, a 78 year old segregationist who was crucified publicly by his now running mate Kamala Harris for those policies, and who basically didn't campaign or hold rallies, and who has [0]received most of his money from the 'upper class', won nearly 12 Million more votes than Barack Obama in 2008. He did this while [1]winning in substantially fewer counties than Barack Obama.
However, most importantly, the majority of the lawsuits have [2]not been addressed based on their merits but have instead been dismissed based for procedural reasons (e.g. legal standing, injury). As a result, there has not been a transparent process through which the evidence that has been presented has been addressed.
One would expect that these dismissals, and the evidence presented would have become major news. That has not happened, and that leaves people who have seen some of the evidence or who have heard about it feeling concerned.
Now, I'm hesitant to bring up the Hunter Biden story because the media narratives on it are hyper-polarizing. But, many of the claims about the contents are true and some (many?) of the videos and emails have been leaked. This story was smothered by social media, just like the election-related concerns. This has led to a complete eradication of trust in the media as a whole by a huge portion of the population.
- PERSONAL OPINION -
The issue is not what happened, the issue is that we have become divided. Until we have more transparency we will not see people coming back together. There is no way to fix the division until the concerns of both sides can be addressed publicly, transparently, and without media (including social media) interference. Seeing videos of raw footage being marked as misinformation by twitter eradicates whatever trust people had in them.
This election cycle, and the way the media is operating, reminds me of the way we found ourselves in the middle east. Everyone knew([6,7]except our allies) there were WMD's until there weren't.
[0] https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2020-election-trump-biden...
[1] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/12/09/fac...
[2] https://www.politifact.com/article/2020/dec/10/donald-trump-... (CTRL+F "lawsuits been disposed")
[3] https://www.clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov/Home/ShowDocument?id=1...
[4] DISCLAIMER I am aware of the bias of the individual presenting, but the content is what is important here. https://youtu.be/XH9ihoLi1NA
[5] https://www.youtube.com/user/veritasvisuals
[6] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2003/03/31/who-lied-to-wh...
[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niger_uranium_forgeries
For the sake of intellectual honesty, I'll post this on my main account. Strong odds it doesn't go well, but transparency is worth striving for.
I have seen [3,4,5]quite a bit of evidence that there was at least some fraud taking place, and that the evidence of that fraud has been suppressed. Whether the fraud was enough to change results, no clue. I have also seen people attacking the character of everyone presenting or talking about said evidence, rather than addressing the actual content of the claims.
The above is concerning, but it doesn't lead me to believe an election was stolen. However, the narrative that's being played out is that Joe Biden, a 78 year old segregationist who was crucified publicly by his now running mate Kamala Harris for those policies, and who basically didn't campaign or hold rallies, and who has [0]received most of his money from the 'upper class', won nearly 12 Million more votes than Barack Obama in 2008. He did this while [1]winning in substantially fewer counties than Barack Obama.
However, most importantly, the majority of the lawsuits have [2]not been addressed based on their merits but have instead been dismissed based for procedural reasons (e.g. legal standing, injury). As a result, there has not been a transparent process through which the evidence that has been presented has been addressed.
One would expect that these dismissals, and the evidence presented would have become major news. That has not happened, and that leaves people who have seen some of the evidence or who have heard about it feeling concerned.
Now, I'm hesitant to bring up the Hunter Biden story because the media narratives on it are hyper-polarizing. But, many of the claims about the contents are true and some (many?) of the videos and emails have been leaked. This story was smothered by social media, just like the election-related concerns. This has led to a complete eradication of trust in the media as a whole by a huge portion of the population.
- PERSONAL OPINION -
The issue is not what happened, the issue is that we have become divided. Until we have more transparency we will not see people coming back together. There is no way to fix the division until the concerns of both sides can be addressed publicly, transparently, and without media (including social media) interference. Seeing videos of raw footage being marked as misinformation by twitter eradicates whatever trust people had in them.
This election cycle, and the way the media is operating, reminds me of the way we found ourselves in the middle east. Everyone knew([6,7]except our allies) there were WMD's until there weren't.
[0] https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2020-election-trump-biden...
[1] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/12/09/fac...
[2] https://www.politifact.com/article/2020/dec/10/donald-trump-... (CTRL+F "lawsuits been disposed")
[3] https://www.clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov/Home/ShowDocument?id=1...
[4] DISCLAIMER I am aware of the bias of the individual presenting, but the content is what is important here. https://youtu.be/XH9ihoLi1NA
[5] https://www.youtube.com/user/veritasvisuals
[6] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2003/03/31/who-lied-to-wh...
[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niger_uranium_forgeries
I'm not an American but as a citizen of the world I care about what's going on in the USA. So I decided to click on one of your links and go down that rabbit hole. I picked [3]. This certain Nahshon Garret who claims that he has not voted in Arizona yet somehow did vote in Arizona.
So it seems this dude is a wrestler, and here's a random Twitter quote: "If the CHURCh understood the Laws of God which govern our relationship with Him, our neighbor, and those whom he has given authority to we wouldn’t be in this situation. The Church has failed to represent the lawful nature character and heart of God. Lawlessness is rampant." Anyhow, look him up on Twitter.
If you Google this story you'll see this dude got a fair bit of media exposure. I'd say more than I'd expect. So much for "the media doesn't report on this".
We also have some mystery Arizona law firm involved here. So what's the story exactly in how this specific person got involved with this specific law firm? I'd follow that lead but I sort of got an idea about who is involved here.
Just because we have a signed affidavit doesn't mean its true...
This guy (or rather these lawyers) did have their day in court: https://www.clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov/records/election-2020/... and the Justice offers a lengthy and educated opinion on the issue as a whole (basically while there might have been some irregularities there is no way they would have changed the outcome of the elections). And man, there is a lot of minutes/paperwork here.
Is this your best evidence of fraud? I think it's pretty thin.
Also please vote in your elections, it impacts all of us.
So it seems this dude is a wrestler, and here's a random Twitter quote: "If the CHURCh understood the Laws of God which govern our relationship with Him, our neighbor, and those whom he has given authority to we wouldn’t be in this situation. The Church has failed to represent the lawful nature character and heart of God. Lawlessness is rampant." Anyhow, look him up on Twitter.
If you Google this story you'll see this dude got a fair bit of media exposure. I'd say more than I'd expect. So much for "the media doesn't report on this".
We also have some mystery Arizona law firm involved here. So what's the story exactly in how this specific person got involved with this specific law firm? I'd follow that lead but I sort of got an idea about who is involved here.
Just because we have a signed affidavit doesn't mean its true...
This guy (or rather these lawyers) did have their day in court: https://www.clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov/records/election-2020/... and the Justice offers a lengthy and educated opinion on the issue as a whole (basically while there might have been some irregularities there is no way they would have changed the outcome of the elections). And man, there is a lot of minutes/paperwork here.
Is this your best evidence of fraud? I think it's pretty thin.
Also please vote in your elections, it impacts all of us.
That isn't the strongest evidence that I linked, let alone the strongest evidence that exists. I recommend looking into the data gathered by the Voter Integrity Fund (I linked a video from an individual presenting their findings) to have a place to start.
You picked the one high-profile case where an individual who did not vote in a specific state somehow had a signature verified ballot cast in their name. Because of who he is, and because of his beliefs, it made headlines (in conservative media).
If you google "Nahshon Garrett CNN" you see the following results: https://pasteboard.co/JIuN3X9.jpg
You can swap CNN for almost every major media outlet(NBC, MSNBC, etc) and see the same results. So, compared to the amount of articles posted that call allegations of fraud baseless, or claim there is no evidence, the coverage this well-documented counterexample is extremely minimal. It's noteworthy that an independent channel (Tim Pool) has such a presence in the results.
> Also please vote in your elections, it impacts all of us.
There hasn't been a President in 40 years (until Trump, ironically) that has not started a new war. As someone who strongly believes that violence should only be tolerated as a defensive measure of last resort, I cannot in good conscience vote for anyone who does not believe the same.
You picked the one high-profile case where an individual who did not vote in a specific state somehow had a signature verified ballot cast in their name. Because of who he is, and because of his beliefs, it made headlines (in conservative media).
If you google "Nahshon Garrett CNN" you see the following results: https://pasteboard.co/JIuN3X9.jpg
You can swap CNN for almost every major media outlet(NBC, MSNBC, etc) and see the same results. So, compared to the amount of articles posted that call allegations of fraud baseless, or claim there is no evidence, the coverage this well-documented counterexample is extremely minimal. It's noteworthy that an independent channel (Tim Pool) has such a presence in the results.
> Also please vote in your elections, it impacts all of us.
There hasn't been a President in 40 years (until Trump, ironically) that has not started a new war. As someone who strongly believes that violence should only be tolerated as a defensive measure of last resort, I cannot in good conscience vote for anyone who does not believe the same.
Well, if this guy makes your top N list, and I just sampled it randomly I think I have some justification of extrapolating to the rest of your list. Like I was saying, this dude got more media coverage than I'd have given him. CNN doesn't have to report any random story of someone claiming something. For sure they have a bias but they don't have to give everyone a stage to air their grievance.
Where exactly is that "well-documented" documentation? It's not in the affidavit. For all we know this guy voted in Arizona just so he could cry foul, or nobody really voted in Arizona using his name. Even if we say that one of his friends or acquaintances (clearly a Biden supporter) knew that he moved and took advantage to fake a vote where does that exactly leave us? How many people are in this situation? Would it change the results? Was this somehow systematically exploited? And how exactly?
Why should I assign any credibility to what some seem to call "Pro-Trump ‘voter integrity’ group that is calling Pennsylvania voters has ties to White House"? Does this group have any credibility? Now I need to watch a video? But sure, let's see what they're saying and I'll get back to you.
We have plenty of credible sources, including from the current administration, who tell us that the elections was generally fair.
Not voting has an impact, so if the president that won starts a war, and you didn't vote for the other guy (hypothetically) then you did actually effectively vote for the president. You don't get to walk away from democracy like that.
EDIT: So I went to the video. I gotta say "Trump Pence" in the background inspires confidence in the message. I'm not gonna spend an hour of my time listening to this so I jumped to the "dead voters" segment because that seemed interesting. "blah blah blah", "no records", "duplicate names make this difficult", "very small numbers", "small numbers", "I can not say there was an effort to vote in the name of the deceased"... "Its very difficult to determine who is dead and who is not". So great, it's all good then?
Where exactly is that "well-documented" documentation? It's not in the affidavit. For all we know this guy voted in Arizona just so he could cry foul, or nobody really voted in Arizona using his name. Even if we say that one of his friends or acquaintances (clearly a Biden supporter) knew that he moved and took advantage to fake a vote where does that exactly leave us? How many people are in this situation? Would it change the results? Was this somehow systematically exploited? And how exactly?
Why should I assign any credibility to what some seem to call "Pro-Trump ‘voter integrity’ group that is calling Pennsylvania voters has ties to White House"? Does this group have any credibility? Now I need to watch a video? But sure, let's see what they're saying and I'll get back to you.
We have plenty of credible sources, including from the current administration, who tell us that the elections was generally fair.
Not voting has an impact, so if the president that won starts a war, and you didn't vote for the other guy (hypothetically) then you did actually effectively vote for the president. You don't get to walk away from democracy like that.
EDIT: So I went to the video. I gotta say "Trump Pence" in the background inspires confidence in the message. I'm not gonna spend an hour of my time listening to this so I jumped to the "dead voters" segment because that seemed interesting. "blah blah blah", "no records", "duplicate names make this difficult", "very small numbers", "small numbers", "I can not say there was an effort to vote in the name of the deceased"... "Its very difficult to determine who is dead and who is not". So great, it's all good then?
I'm just a guy on the internet. I don't have a 'Top List' at all, I just have access to google.
You seem to have a strongly held position on the subject, and I have no interest in trying to change your position. However, it would be beneficial for democracy if you would take the time to understand the position of those with different views than yourself. It helps a lot if you don't actively admit (and condescendingly phrase) that you won't spend your time to understand their concerns.
> Not voting has an impact, so if the president that won starts a war, and you didn't vote for the other guy (hypothetically) then you did actually effectively vote for the president. You don't get to walk away from democracy like that.
Actually, not voting very specifically does not have an impact and reduces the thresholds required for recalls for elected officials. I'll vote in every election once we have a voting system that doesn't perpetuate the powers of the two most corrupt institutions in America.
You seem to have a strongly held position on the subject, and I have no interest in trying to change your position. However, it would be beneficial for democracy if you would take the time to understand the position of those with different views than yourself. It helps a lot if you don't actively admit (and condescendingly phrase) that you won't spend your time to understand their concerns.
> Not voting has an impact, so if the president that won starts a war, and you didn't vote for the other guy (hypothetically) then you did actually effectively vote for the president. You don't get to walk away from democracy like that.
Actually, not voting very specifically does not have an impact and reduces the thresholds required for recalls for elected officials. I'll vote in every election once we have a voting system that doesn't perpetuate the powers of the two most corrupt institutions in America.
No. I'm just a guy on the Internet. I'm not American. You're asking me to spend time. You presented some evidence. I spent time. I'm not convinced. Why would I sink more time into this? Maybe next time before you ask random people on the Internet to go spend time to understand your position you can spend the time yourself to make a more compelling argument and not just copy-paste random stuff from Google.
Why is this a question of "view"? Isn't the picture pretty clear? I don't really have a view here other than "someone is wrong on the Internet" ( https://xkcd.com/386/ ). And that someone just happens to be you ;) (oops, condescending again). My political views don't really align with much of what's going on in the US on both major parties.
If President X won by 1 vote, and you didn't vote for President Y (oops, ignore that's not how "democracy" works in the US, doesn't matter how many people vote for X), then I'm sorry but your not voting is what made X president. You can spin that anyway you want but it seems like a pretty universal fact. Can US presidents be recalled?
Anyhow, I will agree with one point I think you're making, democracy in the USA is really screwed up. Keep in mind there's other ways of participating in the democratic process, you can run to office yourself or get involved in the campaign of someone who resonates with you.
"condescendingly phrase" - I'm sorry. I probably am being condescending. It's age and my annoyance and disappointment with the USA. Really, what the heck is wrong with you people? Try and tune that out and listen to the core of my position. I.e. there's no credible evidence that the result of the elections is due to some massive fraud or conspiracy.
EDIT: I also want to add that I'm not shutting you out. I'm just asking for some sort of evidence that I can go look at and is going to be compelling/convincing and pointing out that asking someone to watch a one hour video (I watched a portion, randomly, and it had nothing) or to follow some random links (I followed one, randomly, and found nothing) isn't really the way to go about asking someone form an opinion or change an opinion. I don't think (in my biased opinion) that this is a situation where I'm clearly holding a wrong view, there's a mountain of good evidence to that extent, and I'm just ignoring it and sticking with my views. But hey, maybe I'm wrong.
EDIT2: I should know better than arguing with random people on the Internet. But like I said, this is actually important stuff that impact everyone on this planet. If you guys can't get your act together, who can?
EDIT3: Let's use my edit window fully. So you're saying the election was not stolen except there's no way Biden really received all these votes? Or am I misreading your original commentary? So it was stolen? Or it wasn't stolen?
Did Obama also start a war? I honestly can't keep track any more.
Why is this a question of "view"? Isn't the picture pretty clear? I don't really have a view here other than "someone is wrong on the Internet" ( https://xkcd.com/386/ ). And that someone just happens to be you ;) (oops, condescending again). My political views don't really align with much of what's going on in the US on both major parties.
If President X won by 1 vote, and you didn't vote for President Y (oops, ignore that's not how "democracy" works in the US, doesn't matter how many people vote for X), then I'm sorry but your not voting is what made X president. You can spin that anyway you want but it seems like a pretty universal fact. Can US presidents be recalled?
Anyhow, I will agree with one point I think you're making, democracy in the USA is really screwed up. Keep in mind there's other ways of participating in the democratic process, you can run to office yourself or get involved in the campaign of someone who resonates with you.
"condescendingly phrase" - I'm sorry. I probably am being condescending. It's age and my annoyance and disappointment with the USA. Really, what the heck is wrong with you people? Try and tune that out and listen to the core of my position. I.e. there's no credible evidence that the result of the elections is due to some massive fraud or conspiracy.
EDIT: I also want to add that I'm not shutting you out. I'm just asking for some sort of evidence that I can go look at and is going to be compelling/convincing and pointing out that asking someone to watch a one hour video (I watched a portion, randomly, and it had nothing) or to follow some random links (I followed one, randomly, and found nothing) isn't really the way to go about asking someone form an opinion or change an opinion. I don't think (in my biased opinion) that this is a situation where I'm clearly holding a wrong view, there's a mountain of good evidence to that extent, and I'm just ignoring it and sticking with my views. But hey, maybe I'm wrong.
EDIT2: I should know better than arguing with random people on the Internet. But like I said, this is actually important stuff that impact everyone on this planet. If you guys can't get your act together, who can?
EDIT3: Let's use my edit window fully. So you're saying the election was not stolen except there's no way Biden really received all these votes? Or am I misreading your original commentary? So it was stolen? Or it wasn't stolen?
Did Obama also start a war? I honestly can't keep track any more.
I appreciate you providing sources and a level headed post.. but I don't understand how anyone can claim the media is not reporting on something, and then link directly to media about that thing.
> but I don't understand how anyone can claim the media is not reporting on something, and then link directly to media about that thing
Well let's look at once recent example that I mentioned.
[0] CNN completely discredited the Hunter Biden story when it was released. They called it 'Russian Disinformation' and in their articles repeatedly used charged language such as "dubious" to refer to the information presented.
This was done on an ongoing basis by the majority of news organizations at the time. EDIT - [3] And supported by social media giants (Famously Twitter, but Google/Youtube did the same thing)
Fast forward past the election and the narrative has changed rather sharply. [1] They no longer call the story Russian Disinformation, and instead publish that the FBI is actively investigating Hunter Biden.
[2] As I mentioned, the same thing happened after 2001. The largest news institutions eagerly promoted that the US was under extreme threat. CNN in 2002 was publishing quotes like "we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud” and "Saddam is actively pursuing nuclear weapons at this time.”
Then when it became clear that there was no WMD's to be found they started giving room to the opposing narrative such as: Joe Wilson “I think it’s safe to say that the US government should have or did know that [the Niger documents were] fake before Dr. ElBaradei mentioned it in his report at the UN yesterday.”
Just to be clear, I'm not saying 'everything is a lie and the election was stolen and Trump is telling the truth'
What I am saying is that the sources of information have proven themselves to be incredibly untrustworthy to the point where many people automatically believe the inverse of what they claim.
[0] https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/18/media/new-york-post-hunter-bi...
[1] https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/09/politics/hunter-biden-tax-inv...
[2] https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/12/leadup-iraq-war...
[3] https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-54552101
Well let's look at once recent example that I mentioned.
[0] CNN completely discredited the Hunter Biden story when it was released. They called it 'Russian Disinformation' and in their articles repeatedly used charged language such as "dubious" to refer to the information presented.
This was done on an ongoing basis by the majority of news organizations at the time. EDIT - [3] And supported by social media giants (Famously Twitter, but Google/Youtube did the same thing)
Fast forward past the election and the narrative has changed rather sharply. [1] They no longer call the story Russian Disinformation, and instead publish that the FBI is actively investigating Hunter Biden.
[2] As I mentioned, the same thing happened after 2001. The largest news institutions eagerly promoted that the US was under extreme threat. CNN in 2002 was publishing quotes like "we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud” and "Saddam is actively pursuing nuclear weapons at this time.”
Then when it became clear that there was no WMD's to be found they started giving room to the opposing narrative such as: Joe Wilson “I think it’s safe to say that the US government should have or did know that [the Niger documents were] fake before Dr. ElBaradei mentioned it in his report at the UN yesterday.”
Just to be clear, I'm not saying 'everything is a lie and the election was stolen and Trump is telling the truth'
What I am saying is that the sources of information have proven themselves to be incredibly untrustworthy to the point where many people automatically believe the inverse of what they claim.
[0] https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/18/media/new-york-post-hunter-bi...
[1] https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/09/politics/hunter-biden-tax-inv...
[2] https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/12/leadup-iraq-war...
[3] https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-54552101
The media consistently uses "incorrectly", "baseless" and other such qualifiers when talking about the fraud allegations which they have NO DAMNED BUSINESS doing as a supposed neutral reporter of news. CNN cut away from one of the president's conferences on the matter, I guess because he was lying too much or something. Even Fox News turned off a feed of his press secretary, if I'm not mistaken.
I think it's perfectly fine for them to add commentary by pundits. If they believe the president to be lying, they have to do their best to give a competing narrative. But they can't be sticking their narrative into the objective part of the story. Trump said this. Election Official XYZ said this was incorrect because of that. That's it. If they claim something is objectively incorrect they'd better have a very solid basis for it.
I don't know if left-of-center people just don't notice it anymore, but anyone right-of-center feels like they're reading Pravda all the time these days.
I think it's perfectly fine for them to add commentary by pundits. If they believe the president to be lying, they have to do their best to give a competing narrative. But they can't be sticking their narrative into the objective part of the story. Trump said this. Election Official XYZ said this was incorrect because of that. That's it. If they claim something is objectively incorrect they'd better have a very solid basis for it.
I don't know if left-of-center people just don't notice it anymore, but anyone right-of-center feels like they're reading Pravda all the time these days.
> Are there people here on HN that believe the election was stolen?
Not me, but plenty of friends and family have such views. Every argument voiced to me so far from those sources has been some variant of the following two arguments:
1) <ludicrous thing> happened, therefore the election was rigged
2) <ludicrous thing> happened, therefore <verifiably false thing> happened, therefore the election was rigged
Elaborating slightly, <ludicrous thing> is defined here to be something designed to appeal to your common sense -- something that without close inspection would be plainly incompatible with a non-rigged election to any reasonable person. That's probably ordinarily a fine enough chain of reasoning, but all the instances I bothered to examine had the property that reality directly contradicted one's gut reaction; they seemed cherry-picked to be easy to believe and repeat while also being false (not to assume malice, I think that's exactly the kind of reasoning you'd expect if you went fishing for evidence to support a theory you believe to be true).
As a specific example, one argument was that the exact vote tallies for Biden and Trump were the same across many voting locations, therefore a computer program must have generated the result. This sounds reasonable on the surface because it seems unlikely that if you drew vote counts out of a hat they would coincide, and most people aren't equipped to be able to analyze such a statement further -- it's "ludicrous" to imagine that in a fair election that kind of anomaly would happen by accident. In practice though, combining the facts that most combinations of votes are comparatively unlikely (few locales would have a 0/N split for example) with the large number of voting locations and a healthy dose of the birthday paradox, many repeated vote tallies are _exactly_ what one would expect from a fair election. Their absence would in fact be a suspicious property indicating some kind of large-scale fraud.
Anywho, I didn't investigate every theory (there were a lot), but I did check out the first 10 or so which came my way and a randomly selected 5 or so (till I grew tired or bored) from each subsequent batch. There might be a valid argument in there somewhere (and independently of their ability to come up with a valid argument there _might_ have been some kind of massive fraud), but the best evidence I've seen is pretty shoddy.
Not me, but plenty of friends and family have such views. Every argument voiced to me so far from those sources has been some variant of the following two arguments:
1) <ludicrous thing> happened, therefore the election was rigged
2) <ludicrous thing> happened, therefore <verifiably false thing> happened, therefore the election was rigged
Elaborating slightly, <ludicrous thing> is defined here to be something designed to appeal to your common sense -- something that without close inspection would be plainly incompatible with a non-rigged election to any reasonable person. That's probably ordinarily a fine enough chain of reasoning, but all the instances I bothered to examine had the property that reality directly contradicted one's gut reaction; they seemed cherry-picked to be easy to believe and repeat while also being false (not to assume malice, I think that's exactly the kind of reasoning you'd expect if you went fishing for evidence to support a theory you believe to be true).
As a specific example, one argument was that the exact vote tallies for Biden and Trump were the same across many voting locations, therefore a computer program must have generated the result. This sounds reasonable on the surface because it seems unlikely that if you drew vote counts out of a hat they would coincide, and most people aren't equipped to be able to analyze such a statement further -- it's "ludicrous" to imagine that in a fair election that kind of anomaly would happen by accident. In practice though, combining the facts that most combinations of votes are comparatively unlikely (few locales would have a 0/N split for example) with the large number of voting locations and a healthy dose of the birthday paradox, many repeated vote tallies are _exactly_ what one would expect from a fair election. Their absence would in fact be a suspicious property indicating some kind of large-scale fraud.
Anywho, I didn't investigate every theory (there were a lot), but I did check out the first 10 or so which came my way and a randomly selected 5 or so (till I grew tired or bored) from each subsequent batch. There might be a valid argument in there somewhere (and independently of their ability to come up with a valid argument there _might_ have been some kind of massive fraud), but the best evidence I've seen is pretty shoddy.
There are climate change deniers and, I'd wager, holocaust deniers here, so why not? I don't understand why people have such a hard time believing that just because you're in tech you're not immune to the cognitive biases shared by the entire human race.
We might like to think that by virtue of of being technically minded, logical, and by following the scientific method that somehow biases can be eliminated. And yet, there are those here willing for example, to espouse a spiritual belief that has no basis in fact or science. That alone should put paid to any hope that any of us can truly shake biases and beliefs and operate solely on the basis of fact.
Further, very few information sources are truly factual, and without bias?
Further, very few information sources are truly factual, and without bias?
> Further, very few information sources are truly factual, and without bias?
This statement presents a false dichotomy. I could also say that no measurement of the temperature in Phoenix, AZ is "truly" accurate. However, they are accurate enough for our purposes.
To take it a step further, we can combine sources. We can use reasoning about the sources in how we combine them. These sort of study and technique is meta-analysis.
This statement presents a false dichotomy. I could also say that no measurement of the temperature in Phoenix, AZ is "truly" accurate. However, they are accurate enough for our purposes.
To take it a step further, we can combine sources. We can use reasoning about the sources in how we combine them. These sort of study and technique is meta-analysis.
It’s not as unreasonable as you make it sound. Some of the most devout Christians I know are scientists, and extremely logical people too. Precisely because they know how the sausage of Official Science is made, and are naturally inquisitive people, they are not shy to question our supposedly-scientific understanding of the universe (i.e. our best guesses at how it all started) and eventually resolve that doubt with (what they think is) an equally-unprovable act of faith. (Note: this is not about creationism, we’re talking Big Bang etc).
I don’t disagree that human communication is often an oxymoron, simply because of how bodies work. Until we get perfect brain-to-brain data transfer, we’ll always have to go through this messy mismatch between my perceptions and your perceptions.
I don’t disagree that human communication is often an oxymoron, simply because of how bodies work. Until we get perfect brain-to-brain data transfer, we’ll always have to go through this messy mismatch between my perceptions and your perceptions.
Careful scientists tend to say "this is the first time where we know what's happening before this we're unclear"
And "this is where our model breaks down, maybe {big bang singularity, big bounce, etc} happened before it"
The big Bang (fast inflationary persiod in the early universe) is not one of those things? To my knowledge its well measured?
And "this is where our model breaks down, maybe {big bang singularity, big bounce, etc} happened before it"
The big Bang (fast inflationary persiod in the early universe) is not one of those things? To my knowledge its well measured?
The nazis did a lot of technological development, and the brits were doing a colonialism while the industrial revolution was ongoing.
The engineering mindset tends not to care about the provenance of a model, only whether it's useful for a goal. We don't care about the why,unless the why is required for something we're trying to do
The engineering mindset tends not to care about the provenance of a model, only whether it's useful for a goal. We don't care about the why,unless the why is required for something we're trying to do
Well, yes, people with higher education tend to be smarter, yes.
bluedino(3)
Klonoar(1)
Const-me(2)
slumdev(5)
I'm a trump supporter. I don't believe the election was stolen necessarily. However, there are major issues that have gone unresolved and unexamined by courts and cases dismissed without investigation.
For example, in PA, a judge ordered the election officials to allow republican watchers to view the counting, and struck down the distance requirements set by the governor due to COVID. However, election officials refused to do so, violating a court order. The GOP sued the officials, but the court dismissed it due to standing. They didn't even consider the complaint. Then a voter group tried to sue. They dismissed that for standing. Then trump sued, they dismissed that too. So if neither the political party, the voters, nor the candidate purportedly affected has standing to force the state to allow the vote to be examined and cannot bring a case against an official violating a court order -- then who exactly has that right? Can any election official simply do what they want?
Or in the TX v PA case, the Supreme Court really displayed major cowardice. They ought to have taken the case, examined the merits, and said yes or no. They dismissed it due to lack of standing. The case asked a very important question -- the Constitution says only the legislature sets the election rules, but in PA, the governor and SoS made up rules. Additionally, the PA supreme court simply extended a deadline set by the legislature. If indeed the legislature is the only one who can make electoin rules, then these moves are clearly illegal. The Court should have said if it's okay or not. They could have not granted the relief requested, which I do admit is a major ask. But they should have ruled on whether or not the PA Supreme Court or the governor's actions were legal.
To many republicans, it seems as if there were bad actors who got away with not following the law. It now seems that governors, courts, etc can simply set whatever election rules they want and get away with it. Even if it wouldn't have changed the outcome, I'd like to see a court penalize those officials in PA who disobeyed a court order, or explain in clear legal detail after hearing a case as to why those officials were right to do so.
I also want explanations into why the counting stopped. It is quite clear now that the supposed water leak in Atlanta was a simple toilet overflow that should not have caused anything to stop. Why did they do that, and why did they report it as a leak? Why did we see major drops for Biden with zero votes for Trump? Again, I am ready to concede that Biden won. In fact, I think it likely. However, it is crazy to me that so far not a single body has been willing to investigate these seeming discrepancies and instead told the groups interested in seeking resolution that they have no standing to question it.
Telling people that they do not deserve an answer is what leads to the behavior we're seeing now.
The courts made a huge mistake by simply dismissing on standing. Rumor has it that John Roberts didn't want to take the case due to fear of a mob... Well he got his mob, just not the one he expected.
Downvoters: please engage in good faith. Someone asked if there was anyone who believed the election was 'stolen'. I have given my good faith answer as to what I would have liked to have seen in order for me to fully trust our elections. You may disagree with me, but I'm simply giving my solicited opinion.
For example, in PA, a judge ordered the election officials to allow republican watchers to view the counting, and struck down the distance requirements set by the governor due to COVID. However, election officials refused to do so, violating a court order. The GOP sued the officials, but the court dismissed it due to standing. They didn't even consider the complaint. Then a voter group tried to sue. They dismissed that for standing. Then trump sued, they dismissed that too. So if neither the political party, the voters, nor the candidate purportedly affected has standing to force the state to allow the vote to be examined and cannot bring a case against an official violating a court order -- then who exactly has that right? Can any election official simply do what they want?
Or in the TX v PA case, the Supreme Court really displayed major cowardice. They ought to have taken the case, examined the merits, and said yes or no. They dismissed it due to lack of standing. The case asked a very important question -- the Constitution says only the legislature sets the election rules, but in PA, the governor and SoS made up rules. Additionally, the PA supreme court simply extended a deadline set by the legislature. If indeed the legislature is the only one who can make electoin rules, then these moves are clearly illegal. The Court should have said if it's okay or not. They could have not granted the relief requested, which I do admit is a major ask. But they should have ruled on whether or not the PA Supreme Court or the governor's actions were legal.
To many republicans, it seems as if there were bad actors who got away with not following the law. It now seems that governors, courts, etc can simply set whatever election rules they want and get away with it. Even if it wouldn't have changed the outcome, I'd like to see a court penalize those officials in PA who disobeyed a court order, or explain in clear legal detail after hearing a case as to why those officials were right to do so.
I also want explanations into why the counting stopped. It is quite clear now that the supposed water leak in Atlanta was a simple toilet overflow that should not have caused anything to stop. Why did they do that, and why did they report it as a leak? Why did we see major drops for Biden with zero votes for Trump? Again, I am ready to concede that Biden won. In fact, I think it likely. However, it is crazy to me that so far not a single body has been willing to investigate these seeming discrepancies and instead told the groups interested in seeking resolution that they have no standing to question it.
Telling people that they do not deserve an answer is what leads to the behavior we're seeing now.
The courts made a huge mistake by simply dismissing on standing. Rumor has it that John Roberts didn't want to take the case due to fear of a mob... Well he got his mob, just not the one he expected.
Downvoters: please engage in good faith. Someone asked if there was anyone who believed the election was 'stolen'. I have given my good faith answer as to what I would have liked to have seen in order for me to fully trust our elections. You may disagree with me, but I'm simply giving my solicited opinion.
For disregarding court orders, it's the same problem as trying to charge trump. The governor's in charge of enforcement. Punishment comes in the form of losing elections or impeachments, not law enforcement.
I'm not sure you can argue they're bad actors when the clear and obvious reasoning for those measures across the country are to limit the spread of a deadly pandemic.
It seems to me like the poll watcher is the person with standing? They could bring the exact same case a second time, that they were not able to watch. that comes against another legal doctrine now that the elections have been certified -- it's a moot point
The lack of standing is pretty obvious for the supreme Court isn't it? Texas has no say in how Pennsylvania votes. There's other things that are ridiculous about that case, like wanting throw out unrelated Texan votes.
I find it strange that that they weren't also suing to Wisconsin for the same thing and want to throw out Texan republican votes equal to the number of Wisconsin votes counted in this manner they don't like?
I'm not sure you can argue they're bad actors when the clear and obvious reasoning for those measures across the country are to limit the spread of a deadly pandemic.
It seems to me like the poll watcher is the person with standing? They could bring the exact same case a second time, that they were not able to watch. that comes against another legal doctrine now that the elections have been certified -- it's a moot point
The lack of standing is pretty obvious for the supreme Court isn't it? Texas has no say in how Pennsylvania votes. There's other things that are ridiculous about that case, like wanting throw out unrelated Texan votes.
I find it strange that that they weren't also suing to Wisconsin for the same thing and want to throw out Texan republican votes equal to the number of Wisconsin votes counted in this manner they don't like?
> The lack of standing is pretty obvious for the supreme Court isn't it? Texas has no say in how Pennsylvania votes. There's other things that are ridiculous about that case, like wanting throw out unrelated Texan votes.
No it's not though. Texas is asking the Supreme Court to answer the question of whether the constitution allows the governor to make up election rules or whether it's just the state legislature. The Supreme Court has ruled that how other states conduct their elections affects other states. By precedent, they should have answered it.
Moreover, similar challenges to PA law by PA voters, PA candidates, and Trump himself were dismissed also for standing. Perhaps you can argue Texas has no standing to tell PA what to do. But shouldn't a PA voter have standing to question whether his governor can make up rules? How come absolutely no one has standing?
> I'm not sure you can argue they're bad actors when the clear and obvious reasoning for those measures across the country are to limit the spread of a deadly pandemic.
But they violated a court order. Sure, it's to stop a pandemic. But a judge ordered that order to be violated. Court orders supersede gubernatorial edicts.
> The governor's in charge of enforcement
I'm sorry... that's not good enough for an election. Can a governor allow votes to be made up even though it's against the law, because the governor is 'in charge of enforcement'. Can Trump use the national guard to stop the Biden electors from meeting because he's 'in charge of enforcement'.
At some point, the government needs to be held responsible for lack of enforcement of basic civil rights -- election integrity is a governmental duty. You can't just choose not to enforce it.
No it's not though. Texas is asking the Supreme Court to answer the question of whether the constitution allows the governor to make up election rules or whether it's just the state legislature. The Supreme Court has ruled that how other states conduct their elections affects other states. By precedent, they should have answered it.
Moreover, similar challenges to PA law by PA voters, PA candidates, and Trump himself were dismissed also for standing. Perhaps you can argue Texas has no standing to tell PA what to do. But shouldn't a PA voter have standing to question whether his governor can make up rules? How come absolutely no one has standing?
> I'm not sure you can argue they're bad actors when the clear and obvious reasoning for those measures across the country are to limit the spread of a deadly pandemic.
But they violated a court order. Sure, it's to stop a pandemic. But a judge ordered that order to be violated. Court orders supersede gubernatorial edicts.
> The governor's in charge of enforcement
I'm sorry... that's not good enough for an election. Can a governor allow votes to be made up even though it's against the law, because the governor is 'in charge of enforcement'. Can Trump use the national guard to stop the Biden electors from meeting because he's 'in charge of enforcement'.
At some point, the government needs to be held responsible for lack of enforcement of basic civil rights -- election integrity is a governmental duty. You can't just choose not to enforce it.
> The Supreme Court has ruled that how other states conduct their elections affects other states.
It has not. If you disagree, please cite the exact standing.
> Moreover, similar challenges to PA law by PA voters, PA candidates, and Trump himself were dismissed also for standing.
The cases along this line that were dismissed for standing were on the basis of challenging the state constitutionality of state laws (or actions of state officials) in federal courts. You're supposed to challenge them in state courts, which did hear some of the complaints and ultimately disagreed with those cases on the merits. You don't get to run off to federal court just because you don't like the state answers, especially since federal precedent is overwhelmingly along the lines of "we cannot question state courts' interpretation of state laws/state constitutions"--this deference is the very definition of federalism.
It has not. If you disagree, please cite the exact standing.
> Moreover, similar challenges to PA law by PA voters, PA candidates, and Trump himself were dismissed also for standing.
The cases along this line that were dismissed for standing were on the basis of challenging the state constitutionality of state laws (or actions of state officials) in federal courts. You're supposed to challenge them in state courts, which did hear some of the complaints and ultimately disagreed with those cases on the merits. You don't get to run off to federal court just because you don't like the state answers, especially since federal precedent is overwhelmingly along the lines of "we cannot question state courts' interpretation of state laws/state constitutions"--this deference is the very definition of federalism.
tathougies(1)
Do you think that the remedy to a legal disagreement on balance of power between local/state/judicial should be to throw out thousands and thousands of legitimate votes? Or are you saying those votes are fradulent?
No I don't support throwing out votes. This is why I support thomas and alitos reaction to texas v pa.
They said they would have taken the case but, even if they found pa to be wrong, they would not give the resolution asked for. That's eminently reasonable to me. This ensures that if they ruledagainst pa, then what happened there won't happen again while ensuring that thousands who voted in good faith are not disenfranchised
They said they would have taken the case but, even if they found pa to be wrong, they would not give the resolution asked for. That's eminently reasonable to me. This ensures that if they ruledagainst pa, then what happened there won't happen again while ensuring that thousands who voted in good faith are not disenfranchised
Regarding "the Constitution says only the legislature sets the election rules," David French had a good post debunking some falsehoods about this line of thought: https://frenchpress.thedispatch.com/p/debunking-the-frivolou...
In a nutshell: Yes, state legislatures are responsible for deciding the "Manner" used to appoint Presidential electors. And in most states, the "Manner" set forth by the state legislature is "general ballot at the general election."
And as long as that process occurs, stuff like disputes over deadlines, drop box locations, signature verifications, etc stay squarely in the realm of election administration. As Judge Brett Ludwig (a Trump appointee) put it:
> But issues of mere administration of a general election do not mean there has not been a “general ballot” at a “general election.” Plaintiff’s conflation of these potential nonconformities with Constitutional violations is contrary to the plain meaning of the Electors Clause. If plaintiff’s reading of “Manner” was correct, any disappointed loser in a Presidential election, able to hire a team of clever lawyers, could flag claimed deviations from the election rules and cast doubt on the election results. This would risk turning every Presidential election into a federal court lawsuit over the Electors Clause. (Internal citations omitted.)
(Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/487916351/12-12-20-Trump-v-W...)
In a nutshell: Yes, state legislatures are responsible for deciding the "Manner" used to appoint Presidential electors. And in most states, the "Manner" set forth by the state legislature is "general ballot at the general election."
And as long as that process occurs, stuff like disputes over deadlines, drop box locations, signature verifications, etc stay squarely in the realm of election administration. As Judge Brett Ludwig (a Trump appointee) put it:
> But issues of mere administration of a general election do not mean there has not been a “general ballot” at a “general election.” Plaintiff’s conflation of these potential nonconformities with Constitutional violations is contrary to the plain meaning of the Electors Clause. If plaintiff’s reading of “Manner” was correct, any disappointed loser in a Presidential election, able to hire a team of clever lawyers, could flag claimed deviations from the election rules and cast doubt on the election results. This would risk turning every Presidential election into a federal court lawsuit over the Electors Clause. (Internal citations omitted.)
(Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/487916351/12-12-20-Trump-v-W...)
davmar(1)
The media’s ad-supported business model and the effects of branding on consumer behaviors naturally results in an extraordinarily pro-left media environment. The cost of advertising is bid up by brands that benefit from presenting a liberal image, and it drowns out all alternative views.
Just to illustrate, take greenwashing as an example. Companies market their products as being good for the environment because that drives sales, and you can find that message on every shelf in the grocery store. There are many alternative views, very convincing ones in my opinion, that choosing the bottle of water that uses a thinner plastic is still harmful to the environment, and supporting greenwashing by purchasing it actually results in net harm to the environment because it reduces adoption of better options (reusable bottles, tap water) and distracts consumers from issues that could actually have a meaningful impact on climate change (innovation in direct air capture, greener steel production or air travel, a carbon tax, etc).
But how would that message ever reach consumers? It doesn’t make them spend more, so people never hear any of this.
The result is a populace that believes they are saving the world by not asking for a straw at Starbucks.
This is happening at an ideological level. Major brands either declare no political stance, or they declare a pro-left stance. Every celebrity either declares no political opinion, or declares a pro-left political opinion. (Or declares any pro-right opinion, even vaguely or accidentally, and has their brand harmed or destroyed for it.)
I’m something like a Clinton-era liberal, I guess, but the media environment is concerning to me. I would choose Biden over Trump, but the fact that the election was this close even with every major media source being so aggressively and overtly anti-Trump and pro-Biden does concern me. I can’t ignore the fact that if the media environment was more balanced and less ad-driven, it probably would have been an easy victory for Trump. And I do think all of the above is material to the subject of election integrity and the health of our democracy.
Just to illustrate, take greenwashing as an example. Companies market their products as being good for the environment because that drives sales, and you can find that message on every shelf in the grocery store. There are many alternative views, very convincing ones in my opinion, that choosing the bottle of water that uses a thinner plastic is still harmful to the environment, and supporting greenwashing by purchasing it actually results in net harm to the environment because it reduces adoption of better options (reusable bottles, tap water) and distracts consumers from issues that could actually have a meaningful impact on climate change (innovation in direct air capture, greener steel production or air travel, a carbon tax, etc).
But how would that message ever reach consumers? It doesn’t make them spend more, so people never hear any of this.
The result is a populace that believes they are saving the world by not asking for a straw at Starbucks.
This is happening at an ideological level. Major brands either declare no political stance, or they declare a pro-left stance. Every celebrity either declares no political opinion, or declares a pro-left political opinion. (Or declares any pro-right opinion, even vaguely or accidentally, and has their brand harmed or destroyed for it.)
I’m something like a Clinton-era liberal, I guess, but the media environment is concerning to me. I would choose Biden over Trump, but the fact that the election was this close even with every major media source being so aggressively and overtly anti-Trump and pro-Biden does concern me. I can’t ignore the fact that if the media environment was more balanced and less ad-driven, it probably would have been an easy victory for Trump. And I do think all of the above is material to the subject of election integrity and the health of our democracy.
Absolutely, given how polarized things are, I have little trouble believing poll workers and others with the ability to put their thumbs on the scales would do just that.
You believe this because you have no idea how incredibly scrutinized the process is. There is a reason that there are Poll Watchers from both parties, including lawyers and independents to ensure that poll workers don't put their thumb on the scale.
One of the things giving rise to the distrust is that poll watchers were disallowed. It's safe to say that nobody who cares about integrity would be OK with that action.
Where are you getting that idea? You can comfortably ignore anything you hear or read from that source.
No, they literally weren't. Poll Watchers were allowed in every precinct. In fact, one of the only lawsuits the Trump admin won was one that allowed poll watchers to stand closer.
Stop just regurgitating conspiracy theories. Seriously, go volunteer to be a trained poll watcher and go watch an election and then tell me how our elections don't happen under incredible scrutiny.
Stop just regurgitating conspiracy theories. Seriously, go volunteer to be a trained poll watcher and go watch an election and then tell me how our elections don't happen under incredible scrutiny.
> incredibly scrutinized
At best you could say there wasn't enough fraud to tip the balance, but this "no fraud," "most secure election ever" nonsense is ridiculous. People like you probably also would have claimed dependent tax credit fraud was incredibly rare (from Snopes, a "FACT CHECK" site, no less):
> https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/declaration-of-non-depende...
At best you could say there wasn't enough fraud to tip the balance, but this "no fraud," "most secure election ever" nonsense is ridiculous. People like you probably also would have claimed dependent tax credit fraud was incredibly rare (from Snopes, a "FACT CHECK" site, no less):
> https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/declaration-of-non-depende...
Oh for fucks sake, I never made such a claim and the election is incredibly scrutinized. It is the reason that we know about the handful of fraud cases that have happened. Of course no one believes that there is literally no fraud. Why do we need to be so perfectly specific that the amount of fraud that does happen is less than .0001%?
Stop being obtuse, all you are doing is eroding trust for the sake of eroding trust.
It's also hilarious how much of the fraud that does happen is perpetuated by Republicans because their party tells them that Democrats commit fraud.
Stop being obtuse, all you are doing is eroding trust for the sake of eroding trust.
It's also hilarious how much of the fraud that does happen is perpetuated by Republicans because their party tells them that Democrats commit fraud.
“ Of course no one believes that there is literally no fraud. Why do we need to be so perfectly specific that the amount of fraud that does happen is less than .0001%?”
To be fair to the person your replying to I think that percentage you wrote is the crux of the whole thing. Quite large segments of the american population believe fraud >>0.0001% whereas other quite large segments share your view that it is ~0.0001%. And perhaps there is a segment that truly believes it is <<0.0001%.
Though I am unsure what the null hypothesis should be in this case it does seem that the probability of the reality being >>0.0001% is above zero.
To be fair to the person your replying to I think that percentage you wrote is the crux of the whole thing. Quite large segments of the american population believe fraud >>0.0001% whereas other quite large segments share your view that it is ~0.0001%. And perhaps there is a segment that truly believes it is <<0.0001%.
Though I am unsure what the null hypothesis should be in this case it does seem that the probability of the reality being >>0.0001% is above zero.
Extraordinarily claims require extraordinary evidence. You have members of both parties state that the election was secure and fraud minimal. You have international observers say the same. 60+ legal challenges thrown out because of a lack of specific allegations and proof. Elections observed by both parties lawyers.
Stop with the conspiracy theorizing. There are literal billions spent on elections every year, and if there was fraud being perpetuated by one of the parties, it would be in the interest of the other party to spend massive amounts of money to uncover said fraud, and they do, and they have found nothing of substance.
In addition to private study, there have been countless academic studies that state the same.
Stop giving breath to ideas that are without evidence and which are corrosive to our democracy.
Stop with the conspiracy theorizing. There are literal billions spent on elections every year, and if there was fraud being perpetuated by one of the parties, it would be in the interest of the other party to spend massive amounts of money to uncover said fraud, and they do, and they have found nothing of substance.
In addition to private study, there have been countless academic studies that state the same.
Stop giving breath to ideas that are without evidence and which are corrosive to our democracy.
Did you intend to reply to my post? The probability of any physically possible event occurring is above zero. That is certainly not a theory. In fact that there are low probability events that are practically guaranteed to happen over a long enough period of time, such as a big earthquake on the West Coast, comet impact, etc.
That is not watch a poll watcher does.
How exactly would any party put a thumb on the scale?
There is a watcher from each party and an election worker.
The ballots are watched the entire way from opening an envelope/voting booth, counting, moving sealed and secured boxes of ballots, counting, to the end.
How exactly would any party put a thumb on the scale?
There is a watcher from each party and an election worker.
The ballots are watched the entire way from opening an envelope/voting booth, counting, moving sealed and secured boxes of ballots, counting, to the end.
[deleted]
This is a good read, if you only read one link of my post let it be this one: https://spectator.us/reasons-why-the-2020-presidential-elect...
It's my understanding Trump supporters are mad their concerns aren't taken seriously. Most court cases were dismissed on technicalities, without looking at the provided evidence or testimonies.
This is supposed to be the evidence: https://got-freedom.org/evidence/
One example, the Georgia video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJ0xDWhWUxk And the comments about that video: https://thefederalist.com/2020/12/07/no-the-georgia-vote-cou...
Then there's this: https://twitter.com/MArepublican18/status/134659696972941721... https://twitter.com/Maximus_4EVR/status/1346582356899991552
PA & AZ Republicans wanting to decertify Biden after the election fraud hearings in their states. Not sure how serious those attempts are.
I'm European so I don't have a horse in this race.
It's my understanding Trump supporters are mad their concerns aren't taken seriously. Most court cases were dismissed on technicalities, without looking at the provided evidence or testimonies.
This is supposed to be the evidence: https://got-freedom.org/evidence/
One example, the Georgia video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJ0xDWhWUxk And the comments about that video: https://thefederalist.com/2020/12/07/no-the-georgia-vote-cou...
Then there's this: https://twitter.com/MArepublican18/status/134659696972941721... https://twitter.com/Maximus_4EVR/status/1346582356899991552
PA & AZ Republicans wanting to decertify Biden after the election fraud hearings in their states. Not sure how serious those attempts are.
I'm European so I don't have a horse in this race.
Well, these are lists of claims, but they are unsubstantiated.
The question is, where is the evidence of fraud?
The people pursuing these issues need to go beyond tweeting or holding press conferences and bring evidence to court.
So far, that hasn’t happened.
At this point there’s been plenty of opportunity, so it doesn’t seem there’s evidence to substantiate this stuff.
The question is, where is the evidence of fraud?
The people pursuing these issues need to go beyond tweeting or holding press conferences and bring evidence to court.
So far, that hasn’t happened.
At this point there’s been plenty of opportunity, so it doesn’t seem there’s evidence to substantiate this stuff.
We're in some really messed up limbo situation here. Reading all these back and forth comments, I can't even fathom what legitimate "evidence of fraud" would even look like other than super blatant ones. It's not like we'll find some guy holding a gun at a polling station and forcing people to vote one way.
If fraud is happening, and the people doing it don't want to get caught, then you won't find any blatant evidence unless they're sloppy. And even if they're sloppy, at most you'll find hints of what occurred. We have plenty of those.
But somehow in this whole back and forth mess, various facts/stories/details/testimony with various levels of validity/credibility that seem to question the integrity or hint at fraud occurring, are being dismissed with constant repetitive calls of "where is the evidence"?
If fraud is happening, and the people doing it don't want to get caught, then you won't find any blatant evidence unless they're sloppy. And even if they're sloppy, at most you'll find hints of what occurred. We have plenty of those.
But somehow in this whole back and forth mess, various facts/stories/details/testimony with various levels of validity/credibility that seem to question the integrity or hint at fraud occurring, are being dismissed with constant repetitive calls of "where is the evidence"?
"Someone pulled up cases out from under a table, so I can conclude it's full of fraudulent ballots.".
God damn, maybe I should just say I have this box full of bitcoin wallets in USB disks, someone want to give me a billion dollars for them? And yes, it's enough that you believe me without looking inside the box. Or checking the validity of those wallets.
God damn, maybe I should just say I have this box full of bitcoin wallets in USB disks, someone want to give me a billion dollars for them? And yes, it's enough that you believe me without looking inside the box. Or checking the validity of those wallets.
I stopped reading the first article after this:
"We are told that Biden won more votes nationally than any presidential candidate in history. But he won a record low of 17 percent of counties; he only won 524 counties, as opposed to the 873 counties Obama won in 2008. Yet, Biden somehow outdid Obama in total votes."
>>Yet, Biden somehow outdid Obama in total votes.
If you look at the populations of these various counties it isn't puzzling at all.
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-votes-counties-...
"We are told that Biden won more votes nationally than any presidential candidate in history. But he won a record low of 17 percent of counties; he only won 524 counties, as opposed to the 873 counties Obama won in 2008. Yet, Biden somehow outdid Obama in total votes."
>>Yet, Biden somehow outdid Obama in total votes.
If you look at the populations of these various counties it isn't puzzling at all.
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-votes-counties-...
My techie friends pre-2016: "The CIA and FBI are corrupt. Don't trust mainstream media. Voting systems are incredibly hackable."
My techie friends 2020: "The FBI is our savior. What the mainstream media says is true and anyone that otherwise is a conspiracy theorist. This was the most secure election in history."
My techie friends 2020: "The FBI is our savior. What the mainstream media says is true and anyone that otherwise is a conspiracy theorist. This was the most secure election in history."
Here’s a “fun” thought: if you were running a foreign intelligence operation in the USA, surely you’d try to get one of your agents into the mob that got into the Capitol building and given free reign over all those computers, computers that were not locked properly before the legitimate users fled for their safety?
I’m not just talking about Russia and China here, I mean all the intelligence agencies.
I’m not just talking about Russia and China here, I mean all the intelligence agencies.
The threat has already been realized. Apparently a twitter user got into Pelosi's office and posted an screenshot of one of their computers (tweet deleted about an hour ago [1]). You can see the tweet at other sources [2]
[1] https://twitter.com/ElijahSchaffer/status/134690542554391757...
[2] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/01/pro-trump-report...
[1] https://twitter.com/ElijahSchaffer/status/134690542554391757...
[2] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/01/pro-trump-report...
There’s a good thread debunking that it was actually Pelosi’s computer as well as details of the security protocols around the computers: https://twitter.com/foone/status/1346924327996772354?s=21
The person you linked to believes it to be a government computer, that did not comply with the security protocols (which he says is “very common”).
https://mobile.twitter.com/Foone/status/1346925826923663360
There’s no debunk here. It’s a computer connected to the government network at Nancy peolosi’s desk. Anything else is just semantics.
https://mobile.twitter.com/Foone/status/1346925826923663360
There’s no debunk here. It’s a computer connected to the government network at Nancy peolosi’s desk. Anything else is just semantics.
Except the part where it is not her desk or computer: https://twitter.com/ElijahSchaffer/status/134698517009265049...
Did anyone in the chain of comments, say that it was Pelosi's computer? The original poster of the photo, the person who broke in, only said it was in Pelosi's office, which seems true. It's obviously not Pelosi's email inbox visible on the screen, that doesn't need to be "debunked".
This is Hacker News I think we can do a bit better than posting screenshots, here is a way to see deleted tweets [0].
[0] https://factba.se/topic/deleted-tweets
[0] https://factba.se/topic/deleted-tweets
I'm surprised they let leadership back in so quickly. Maybe the dogs got through the floor/tunnels quickly. There are reports of at least two bombs, though news said outside the building.
I think the symbolism of going back tonight is more important than the small risk. But I agree with you this is a breach that needs to be dealt with.
Though with all those computers hacked via solarwinds already anyways maybe it doesn't matter lol
I think the symbolism of going back tonight is more important than the small risk. But I agree with you this is a breach that needs to be dealt with.
Though with all those computers hacked via solarwinds already anyways maybe it doesn't matter lol
This is totally not my area. But are most offices for members of congress not able to keep the _really_ secret stuff on their own systems? Like, is the most sensitive stuff only in a well-secured SCIF in the basement or something?
SOP when I worked in a similar environment was that if there's an evacuation you don't take time to lock up. Probably not an issue for a SCIF, but could be a problem if a congressperson has a safe in their office
Depends on the threat and the secrets you are protecting. If it’s looking REALLY bad, or the secrets are important enough (SCIF), you start destroying things and hope you finish the destruction in time to get out.
That's a good point. Our primary threat was natural disasters, so I can see how different locations might handle things differently
Members of Congress have very limited access to secrets, and none of it will be on the unlocked computer in their front office.
That’s (mostly) because such information is the domain of the executive branch.
That’s (mostly) because such information is the domain of the executive branch.
Secrets is a very lose term here. I'm sure some wall street dudes would pay millions to get the emails of congress members. Also, just because the computers locked doesn't mean i can't copy a hard drive...
> Members of Congress have very limited access to secrets, and none of it will be on the unlocked computer in their front office.
Members of the house intelligence committee have access to all levels of US secrets. There is nothing classified enough to where they can’t see it. Some members even fell for Chinese spy honeypot influence campaigns.
Members of the house intelligence committee have access to all levels of US secrets. There is nothing classified enough to where they can’t see it. Some members even fell for Chinese spy honeypot influence campaigns.
Well yes. They'd probably have to be illegals though because the traditional legal spies will be stationed at embassies and the FBI will be watching them constantly and don't need to ask permission to stop them.
Given the whole Russian play is destabilizing the US, Trump is so far gone now that they probably couldn't dream of it when planning whatever exactly they did do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump%27s_disclosures_o... Then again if you ask nicely enough he'll give it to you.
Given the whole Russian play is destabilizing the US, Trump is so far gone now that they probably couldn't dream of it when planning whatever exactly they did do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump%27s_disclosures_o... Then again if you ask nicely enough he'll give it to you.
I mean, they could also be agents, i.e., Americans acting on the behalf of a foreign power. I guarantee the Russians are at least encouraging this on social media. (Though I also believe this is predominantly a domestic problem)
It is despicable how tepid the police response to armed rioters storming the Capitol has been compared to the response to BLM protests over the summer.
The police specifically allowed the terrorists into the building. They are on the same side.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1346924307692318723
https://twitter.com/i/status/1346924307692318723
I'm confused by this video, what evidence is there that this is "allow[ing] the terrorists into the building"? All I see is law enforcement opening a gate. The Twitter account appears to be a random unverified person, so I can't rely on that either.
Not saying the police response has been perfect, but this video doesn't say much about that.
Not saying the police response has been perfect, but this video doesn't say much about that.
The biggest problem to me is twofold:
- there were very very few law enforcement there beforehand. Compare to BLM where there were thousands of storm troopers, tanks, etc camped out before the similarly obviously publicized protests occurred. Here is a comparison photo of what they had in front of the monument before the LEGAL BLM protest this summer [1]
- the 'resistance' was very weak at least at first. The videos of the 'storming' didn't show much resistance, no gas, no rubber bullets, no attempt to hold the line. here is a 'selfie' [2] which to be fair doesn't show cop actively participating, but does show him just standing there. There are some photos of guns drawn trying to protect the floor, obviously out numbered once they secured Members I understand completely retreating. But the main uniformed officers at the entrances didn't act.
It's a stark difference. My story is that here in Denver I was gassed, before curfew, before an unlawful assembly was declared, during a peaceful protest this summer. They shot more than a few eyes out of their sockets with rubber bullets. A judge had to restrain the Denver police for their violence.
Compare to today it took a LONG time for them to deploy these same weapons, and it doesn't even look like they used tear gas/irritants at least in the first videos, just smoke; unlike what they gassed us with and those in Lafayette Park and across the country.
1 https://s.abcnews.com/images/US/national-guard-lincoln-memor... 2 https://twitter.com/bubbaprog/status/1346920198461419520
- the 'resistance' was very weak at least at first. The videos of the 'storming' didn't show much resistance, no gas, no rubber bullets, no attempt to hold the line. here is a 'selfie' [2] which to be fair doesn't show cop actively participating, but does show him just standing there. There are some photos of guns drawn trying to protect the floor, obviously out numbered once they secured Members I understand completely retreating. But the main uniformed officers at the entrances didn't act.
It's a stark difference. My story is that here in Denver I was gassed, before curfew, before an unlawful assembly was declared, during a peaceful protest this summer. They shot more than a few eyes out of their sockets with rubber bullets. A judge had to restrain the Denver police for their violence.
Compare to today it took a LONG time for them to deploy these same weapons, and it doesn't even look like they used tear gas/irritants at least in the first videos, just smoke; unlike what they gassed us with and those in Lafayette Park and across the country.
1 https://s.abcnews.com/images/US/national-guard-lincoln-memor... 2 https://twitter.com/bubbaprog/status/1346920198461419520
this is old thread and I can't edit, but now that more info has come out for the record part #1 I don't believe anymore. The videos are shocking and disgusting.
This was 1000% a failure from the top, there are lots of videos of these poor uniformed officers on the outer lines outnumbered 1000 / 1 with no gear, no tear gas or other riot weapons, fighting back but just getting trampled, shot with tear gas, hit with bat things, etc. It looks like instead of refusing to respond they didn't have the equipment to.
While the many were brave, there are definitely still some sympathizers and participants for instance WaPo has quotes that there were off duty officers of the law flashing their badges to get in.
i think good chance we'll see the evidence it was intentional negligence denying support/materials/gear and intentionally delaying a response on the part of Trump's DOJ etc.
Send out the subpoenas, and interview this weekend -> vote Monday.
these and so many more, but this focuses on the outer 'rings' https://twitter.com/ElijahSchaffer/status/134696651499014963... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJOgGsC0G9U
This was 1000% a failure from the top, there are lots of videos of these poor uniformed officers on the outer lines outnumbered 1000 / 1 with no gear, no tear gas or other riot weapons, fighting back but just getting trampled, shot with tear gas, hit with bat things, etc. It looks like instead of refusing to respond they didn't have the equipment to.
While the many were brave, there are definitely still some sympathizers and participants for instance WaPo has quotes that there were off duty officers of the law flashing their badges to get in.
i think good chance we'll see the evidence it was intentional negligence denying support/materials/gear and intentionally delaying a response on the part of Trump's DOJ etc.
Send out the subpoenas, and interview this weekend -> vote Monday.
these and so many more, but this focuses on the outer 'rings' https://twitter.com/ElijahSchaffer/status/134696651499014963... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJOgGsC0G9U
> All I see is law enforcement opening a gate.
That is literally letting them in. They didn't stand their position. They literally walked backwards and let the crowd in.
That is literally letting them in. They didn't stand their position. They literally walked backwards and let the crowd in.
"Allow[ing] the terrorists into the building" doesn't follow from a single shot of opening a gate. For all I know, law enforcement is funneling people away from a position that they recently decided should be cleared. I have no idea (and as far as I can tell, neither does anyone else here).
That shot is right in front of the building basically. The police opened barricades to let people even closer to the building. Unless the police has some sort of amazing 4D plan they are not letting us in on, which is not likely given the events of today, there is no strategic reason to clear that area. They're just letting the protestors in.
The last few seconds very clearly shows more people already "let in" on the other side of the gate. More context is needed.
Or perhaps they were more focused on getting the people inside to safety than they were about the actual physical building.
The point stands: the summer BLM protests in DC were marching in the closed-off streets around the White House and were met with even stronger resistance from the police.
https://twitter.com/bubbaprog/status/1346920198461419520?s=0...
And, you know, taking selfies with them.
And, you know, taking selfies with them.
Why would capital police escort armed rioters into the Senate building for "safety" if their job is to ensure the safety of the Senate building, Senators, and staff?
This is a backwards argument. The police didn't do their jobs. They were even seen taking selfies with the trespassers: https://twitter.com/bubbaprog/status/1346920198461419520
This is a backwards argument. The police didn't do their jobs. They were even seen taking selfies with the trespassers: https://twitter.com/bubbaprog/status/1346920198461419520
Wow, that's unbelievable. What possible explanation could there be for this?
A handful of cops and hundreds of people in an angry mob? Is it really a mystery why they didn't fight too hard to keep the barriers shut?
It’s the US capitol, it’s incredibly surprising. It’s outrageous. There’s no lack of adjectives.
Police, like everyone else, are not perfect automatons... there is always the possibility of any, physically possible, behaviour occurring in any place and in any time.
Of course it is always possible to modulate people’s behaviour through incentives and so on, to achieve a very high probability that they will behave in certain ways.
In this case it seems that the balance was in favor of the protestors.
Of course it is always possible to modulate people’s behaviour through incentives and so on, to achieve a very high probability that they will behave in certain ways.
In this case it seems that the balance was in favor of the protestors.
Yes, how convenient this time, in comparison to the BLM protests which were met with militarized police against peaceful protestors.
I think the definition they used of "peaceful" (given context) was different.
It's a pretty straight-forward explanation, just one that people don't like to think about:
Pigs can't be trusted. They like to pretend they're protecting people and doing the right thing. But they're just bullies in uniform. Never trust any of them. Ever. "My dad is a cop though and..." no. If there was a single good cop, they would have stopped this. Fucking pigs. Your dad is a pig. Get over it.
Maybe if cops had better training, they would stop something like this and focus on protecting us. But they don't, and they didn't. They're pigs. Don't be another person who buys into the pigs' lies.
Pigs can't be trusted. They like to pretend they're protecting people and doing the right thing. But they're just bullies in uniform. Never trust any of them. Ever. "My dad is a cop though and..." no. If there was a single good cop, they would have stopped this. Fucking pigs. Your dad is a pig. Get over it.
Maybe if cops had better training, they would stop something like this and focus on protecting us. But they don't, and they didn't. They're pigs. Don't be another person who buys into the pigs' lies.
This is not an unacceptable attitude towards any group of people.
It's also the kind of rhetoric that has driven so many in law enforcement into Trumpism.
It's also the kind of rhetoric that has driven so many in law enforcement into Trumpism.
[deleted]
84% of police are Trump voters. That's the explanation.
It's quite unfair to call them terrorists when they've harmed no one and destroyed nothing. Remember, riots are the voice of the unheard!
> It's quite unfair to call them terrorists when they've harmed no one and destroyed nothing.
People were harmed and property was destroyed. There's plenty of videos of fights breaking out and capitol windows being broken.
https://twitter.com/search?q=washingtondc%20windows%20until%...
People were harmed and property was destroyed. There's plenty of videos of fights breaking out and capitol windows being broken.
https://twitter.com/search?q=washingtondc%20windows%20until%...
I thought “people over property”? This seemed like a “mostly peaceful” protest. Or have the rules changed now that it’s the other side doing it?
Four people are dead. The building was ransacked. Bombs were placed. There were people obviously planning kidnapping (kidnapping at the least, most likely the plan included murder). This was not a peaceful protest.
> they've harmed no one
Besides the democratic process
> destroyed nothing
Besides the capitol
> the voice of the unheard!
I've been hearing about them weekly for the last 4 years and I'm not even in the US
Besides the democratic process
> destroyed nothing
Besides the capitol
> the voice of the unheard!
I've been hearing about them weekly for the last 4 years and I'm not even in the US
> It’s quite unfair to call them terrorists when they’ve harmed no one and destroyed nothing.
There have been quite a number of injuries and property damage, deployment of chemical irritants by the mob against law enforcement, and several explosive devices identified and defused in the attempt to use violence and threats of further violence to overturn the results of the recent election.
There have been quite a number of injuries and property damage, deployment of chemical irritants by the mob against law enforcement, and several explosive devices identified and defused in the attempt to use violence and threats of further violence to overturn the results of the recent election.
> There have been quite a number of injuries and property damage, deployment of chemical irritants by the mob against law enforcement, and several explosive devices identified and defused
You're right, I've revised my view of the incident. I now see this constitutes sedition, an attack on our very republic.
For consistency, I've also reconsidered my view of the BLM riots. In light of the billions in property damage; the tens of direct deaths and thousands of ensuing murders; the violent mob attacks on law enforcement, replete with "chemical irritants" and Molotov cocktails; all on a scale 1e3 to 1e5 larger than what's happening in DC; I have to conclude they were a grave act of terrorism.
You're right, I've revised my view of the incident. I now see this constitutes sedition, an attack on our very republic.
For consistency, I've also reconsidered my view of the BLM riots. In light of the billions in property damage; the tens of direct deaths and thousands of ensuing murders; the violent mob attacks on law enforcement, replete with "chemical irritants" and Molotov cocktails; all on a scale 1e3 to 1e5 larger than what's happening in DC; I have to conclude they were a grave act of terrorism.
They are disrupting political process via force in the name of ideology. They're domestic terrorists.
tubbyjr(1)
The standard was set last summer. Leftists spent three months torching police stations, attacking courthouses, looting businesses, and confronting politicians in their homes. I continue to be assiduously reminded that none of this constituted terrorism. Don't see why this should be treated any differently.
Show me the politician inciting the Summer's arsonists to destruction.
There are always people taking advantage of or inciting chaos to do reckless things. They need to be tried and, if found guilty, punished. Even if they're the president.
There are always people taking advantage of or inciting chaos to do reckless things. They need to be tried and, if found guilty, punished. Even if they're the president.
Show me the politician inciting the Summer's arsonists to destruction.
"People over property" is probably the most direct encouragement of property destruction.
"People over property" is probably the most direct encouragement of property destruction.
Both you and the folks replying to you are painting with a broad brush.
Only some small portion of these protests are likely to be violent bad actors, and the proper protesters should not be disrupted by law enforcement
Only some small portion of these protests are likely to be violent bad actors, and the proper protesters should not be disrupted by law enforcement
Sure, but they didn't interfere in the election of the President. Open your eyes.
tubbyjr(1)
At least one person has been shot. https://twitter.com/AP/status/1346918654076723202
cltby(2)
It's true. "terrorism" is a bad word and we should not use it. The definition prohibits an objective meaning.
And I would rather see this police response for BLM, than that response for these people.
And I would rather see this police response for BLM, than that response for these people.
Say the dead comment I can't reply to:
> Thats probably because you hate black people more than you respect Democracy.
this is extra funny to me because it is also mathematically bogus. I'm saying I very much don't want the cops harassing BLM protests, even if it the price is letting these protests vandalize the Capitol building.
Maybe poster meant "That's probably because you like black people more than you respect Democracy". To which I answer, "...you call the Senate Democracy?"
> Thats probably because you hate black people more than you respect Democracy.
this is extra funny to me because it is also mathematically bogus. I'm saying I very much don't want the cops harassing BLM protests, even if it the price is letting these protests vandalize the Capitol building.
Maybe poster meant "That's probably because you like black people more than you respect Democracy". To which I answer, "...you call the Senate Democracy?"
I saw a video on twitter of a window getting destroyed.
There is a photo going around of a man carrying off a dais across the Rotunda. The British web site I saw it on made a joke about Antiques Roadshow.
They broke into the Capitol building. Smashed windows. They've attempted to break into the House and Senate chambers.
> It is despicable how tepid the police response
Having been gassed and flashbanged all summer in Portland while protesting for Black Lives, the last word I can imagine using to describe police restraint is "despicable." I don't wish that shit on anybody.
Having been gassed and flashbanged all summer in Portland while protesting for Black Lives, the last word I can imagine using to describe police restraint is "despicable." I don't wish that shit on anybody.
You're right, practicing restraint is very important. What I meant is that the difference itself is what's despicable. An actively hostile, antagonistic response to protestors who were almost entirely peaceful versus doing almost nothing to impede armed rioters breaking into the Capitol.
It seems widely agreed that 93% of BLM protests were peaceful [1]. That remaining 7% slice was responsible for $1-2 billion of property damage [2], on par with a serious natural disaster. I don't know how someone can continue to use the "mostly peaceful" line with a straight face.
[1] https://time.com/5886348/report-peaceful-protests/ [2] https://www.axios.com/riots-cost-property-damage-276c9bcc-a4...
[1] https://time.com/5886348/report-peaceful-protests/ [2] https://www.axios.com/riots-cost-property-damage-276c9bcc-a4...
Last I heard, 50% + 1 is the definition of "mostly". 93% is "overwhelmingly". To be clear, any property damage or loss of life is a tragedy but "mostly peaceful" isn't just accurate, it's an understatement.
Point taken, but by this standard, we could defend drunk driving as overwhelmingly safe, war as overwhelmingly non-fatal, Vioxx as overwhelmingly heart-healthy, ISPs as overwhelmingly customer friendly, etc etc.
It strikes me as pyschopathic to endorse actions that stand a 7% chance of ruining numerous innocent lives.
It strikes me as pyschopathic to endorse actions that stand a 7% chance of ruining numerous innocent lives.
I didn't endorse any of the violent protests. But I don't understand your analogy at all. Drunk driving is never ok. Are you saying any kind of protest is never ok because it has a chance of turning violent? confused face
There are over 110M drunk driving incidents in the US every year and nearly 7M crashes, drunk or otherwise [1][2]. If we conservatively attribute all of these crashes to drunk drivers, we find that 94% of drunk driving causes no damage or injury. It is, to borrow your words, overwhelmingly safe.
[1] https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/impaired_driving/im...
[2] https://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/facts-statistics-highway-...
[1] https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/impaired_driving/im...
[2] https://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/facts-statistics-highway-...
I ask you again, are you saying protests of any kind are never ok? Because that's what it sounds like you're saying.
All I ask is that your social movement be less injurious to society than being wasted behind the wheel.
[deleted]
If I flipped a coin and it came up heads 93% of the time would you say it came up mostly heads?
I feel like people are just talking past each other on this. Yes the protests were technically mostly peaceful, but if the loss from a violent protest is 15x the magnitude of the gain of a peaceful protest, the impact is no longer mostly peaceful. I do not think this extreme minority should warp one's overall opinion of BLM for the record, but I do think the lack of acknowledgement for the damage that was caused is counterproductive.
I think the double standards are despicable.
Yeah. I understand the unfortunate symbolism of right-wing intruders taking the chambers but I still think in terms of injuries/ fatalities while staff and lawmakers were evacuated, this was a successful de-escalation. (This [well, 'taking' the parliament] happened in Germany, too, and no-one was talking about it anymore days later because nothing really happened.)
It is unfortunate though, that this strategy is only seemingly applied to white people.
It is unfortunate though, that this strategy is only seemingly applied to white people.
> It is unfortunate though, that this strategy is only seemingly applied to white people.
It is much more than unfortunate.
It is much more than unfortunate.
Do you have any evidence of armed rioters storming anything? The only video I have seen is people "armed" with flags, signs, banners, phones, and cameras. Has anyone been beaten to a pulp? Have buildings been looted, vandalized, or burned down yet? "BLM protests" gained a well deserved reputation before the police responses became aggressive. I don't recall the police doing much of anything until after they allowed "peaceful protesters" to storm and burn down the police precinct and the rioting/looting began.
Several instances where they vandalized and destroyed tens of thousands of dollars of camera equipment belonging to reporters
https://twitter.com/shomaristone/status/1346941715895250949
https://twitter.com/Journo_Christal/status/13469458353685012...
Also, WTF do you mean by any evidence of buildings being looted or vandalized? Have you stuck your head in sand or not seen the rioters destroying shit in the Capitol? Just look up any legitimate media source or anything on twitter from today. They also fucking placed pipe bombs and explosives in several locations.
https://twitter.com/shomaristone/status/1346941715895250949
https://twitter.com/Journo_Christal/status/13469458353685012...
Also, WTF do you mean by any evidence of buildings being looted or vandalized? Have you stuck your head in sand or not seen the rioters destroying shit in the Capitol? Just look up any legitimate media source or anything on twitter from today. They also fucking placed pipe bombs and explosives in several locations.
Were they destroying property and throwing molotov cocktails at them like Antifa/BLM did over the summer?
Yes. They were smashing windows and doors in the Capitol. They destroyed press cameras and other recording equipment. I didn't see any reports of molotov cocktails explicitly but they were using pepper spray and other similar sprays against the police.
Obstacles to get in, as opposed to BLM's/Antifa's indiscriminate violence and destruction against anything and anybody nearby.
Here are those molotov cocktails: https://twitter.com/MacFarlaneNews/status/134727820088436326...
So none were actually used?
I think they've responded well. All the congresspeople were evacuated safely, I expect that if they had any chance of causing harm there the police response would have skyrocketed.
What you had after the evacuation was complete was just a few fools breaking some windows, posing on the dias for Twitter likes, and wandering the hallways. I'm surprised they haven't spray painted their message on the walls yet.
Government property gets vandalized all the time, and can be replaced. The last thing you want to do is to kill these people who have been trapped in a cult of disinformation and turn them into martyrs, possibly building into a civil war. Currently, the response makes them look weak, but at the end of the day they'll all just leave, hopefully without loss of life.
That civil war must be avoided at all costs, and if a tepid-looking response, a few of them getting away without being arrested, a few panes of glass, and some carpet cleaning are what that costs, then I'm more than happy to pay it.
I'm less enthusiastic about the criminals at the top escaping prison time, as Joe Biden seems intent on allowing per his messaging, but again, if prosecuting everyone complicit in the previous administration's crimes has a 1% chance of inciting civil war, well, it's just not worth it.
What you had after the evacuation was complete was just a few fools breaking some windows, posing on the dias for Twitter likes, and wandering the hallways. I'm surprised they haven't spray painted their message on the walls yet.
Government property gets vandalized all the time, and can be replaced. The last thing you want to do is to kill these people who have been trapped in a cult of disinformation and turn them into martyrs, possibly building into a civil war. Currently, the response makes them look weak, but at the end of the day they'll all just leave, hopefully without loss of life.
That civil war must be avoided at all costs, and if a tepid-looking response, a few of them getting away without being arrested, a few panes of glass, and some carpet cleaning are what that costs, then I'm more than happy to pay it.
I'm less enthusiastic about the criminals at the top escaping prison time, as Joe Biden seems intent on allowing per his messaging, but again, if prosecuting everyone complicit in the previous administration's crimes has a 1% chance of inciting civil war, well, it's just not worth it.
Other than political viewpoints, I don't really see much difference.
BLM they had military out in full force, even though BLM was non-violent protests. Flip side this terrorism event was known to be coming and they did very little to prepare for it. Nor are they stopping it with any great haste.
Well, now the National Guard has been deployed, so I suspect we'll soon see a sharp change in atmosphere
> BLM they had military out in full force, even though BLM was non-violent protests.
The military only became involved after local governments gave "protesters" space over multiple days and emboldened the idiots to the point local police were overwhelmed.
The military only became involved after local governments gave "protesters" space over multiple days and emboldened the idiots to the point local police were overwhelmed.
Hundreds of the BLM protests were violent (7%).
The BLM riots cost about $1-2 billion dollars of property damage [1]. Taking as given the standard gov't value of life of $9M, this works out to 110-220 life equivalents. This would qualify the BLM riots as one of the deadliest terror attacks to ever happen on US soil.
[1] https://www.axios.com/riots-cost-property-damage-276c9bcc-a4...
[1] https://www.axios.com/riots-cost-property-damage-276c9bcc-a4...
What evidence do you have that they are armed? In every piece of media I've seen, no one has anything in their hands.
NYT is reporting at least 5 guns seized so far, 13 arrested. Early numbers and not hard to extrapolate that many who got out when it was open season could also be armed.
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/01/06/us/washington-dc-pro...
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/01/06/us/washington-dc-pro...
Don't forget the explosive devices neutralized by the police.
Only 5 guns? Then why didn't "BLM protesters" qualify for "armed rioters"? They were armed with far more than the Trump supporters I have seen.
The Confederate flag is being flown outside the senate floor [1]:
[1]: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ErEof0AXYAkTU-w.jpg
[1]: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ErEof0AXYAkTU-w.jpg
I am curious if federal prison is worth the photo op?
I think you have to be in a really bad place mentally do what they are doing. They're either incapable of seeing the consequences, or they're happy to be martyrs for what they think is a just cause.
Or they think they will be pardoned because why not? Trump already pardoned literal war criminals.
I wonder if there will be consequences for Trump?
25th amendment is in discussion by his cabinet. Consequences are coming down hard.
After the last 4 years the idea that there will be consequences for anything Trump does is laughable. He'll take up painting veterans or some other hobby and rehabilitate his image soon enough.
[deleted]
Will they use cell phone data to charge these thousands of terrorists like they did on the peaceful outdoor BLM protestors?
Just a bit of snark I don't believe that's legal or even if so with current laws it should be.
But I do not think we will see Federal charges at equivalent levels /per capita as BLM protests.
Just a bit of snark I don't believe that's legal or even if so with current laws it should be.
But I do not think we will see Federal charges at equivalent levels /per capita as BLM protests.
Unfortunately this is also going to be another superspreader event. Odds are this will lead to fatalities even without this violence.
Won't Trump just pardon everyone?
They're probably going to give an amnesty for today's events, what are they going to do? Throw thousands of people in jail and make them political martyrs?
Yes?
The opposite sends the message that you run a low probability of sanction if you attack the US Capitol. Very bad incentive.
The opposite sends the message that you run a low probability of sanction if you attack the US Capitol. Very bad incentive.
How about locking the doors? I didn't see any battering rams.
This thing was a major police messup.
There should have been plenty riot police available that can force people to not enter. Obviously the risk of protesters trying to go in was high when Trump had a rally outside.
This thing was a major police messup.
There should have been plenty riot police available that can force people to not enter. Obviously the risk of protesters trying to go in was high when Trump had a rally outside.
https://youtu.be/CEEEMB0c5So
Not just a matter of doors sadly...
Not just a matter of doors sadly...
Oh ... ok maybe harder to seal off than I thought.
Regardless of how they got in, all of these folks should be in jail awaiting charges for felony murder, along with a raft of other things.
Felony murder would imply that the death of the women was murder, right? A guess both tresspassing or rioting is more proper charges. IANAL.
IANAL, but...
Felony murder applies when a person dies while the offender is committing any of a set of felonies. It doesn't matter how the person died, or whether it was intentional because the intent to commit the initial felony is enough.
The canonical example is everyone who took part in a bank robbery can be charged with murder if the bank guards kill one of the robbers. This even applies to the getaway driver, who may not have entered the bank.
The initial felony could be any of: the assault on the building, breaking & entering, various domestic terror statutes we have for this sort of thing.
There were at least 4 deaths at the Capitol yesterday. All of the insurgents should be facing 4 murder charges, in addition to the other charges that we would expect.
Edit: possibly relevant statute: https://code.dccouncil.us/dc/council/code/sections/22-2101.h...
This appears to indicate that everyone who illegally entered the Capitol yesterday can be indicted for first-degree murder, which carries a sentence of 30 to life in DC.
Felony murder applies when a person dies while the offender is committing any of a set of felonies. It doesn't matter how the person died, or whether it was intentional because the intent to commit the initial felony is enough.
The canonical example is everyone who took part in a bank robbery can be charged with murder if the bank guards kill one of the robbers. This even applies to the getaway driver, who may not have entered the bank.
The initial felony could be any of: the assault on the building, breaking & entering, various domestic terror statutes we have for this sort of thing.
There were at least 4 deaths at the Capitol yesterday. All of the insurgents should be facing 4 murder charges, in addition to the other charges that we would expect.
Edit: possibly relevant statute: https://code.dccouncil.us/dc/council/code/sections/22-2101.h...
This appears to indicate that everyone who illegally entered the Capitol yesterday can be indicted for first-degree murder, which carries a sentence of 30 to life in DC.
Exactly. Are you an economist per chance? Incentive logic runs rampant in economics.
I think they will go after key figures - that would be my take and rightfully so.
If not, Trump will for sure
By the time charges are laid he's out.
Doesn't matter. He can pardon them before any charges are laid out, or after and he can give a blanket pardon for crimes related to whatever and to anybody involved, because the pardons don't have to be to a named person.
I thought this hasn't been determined to viable yet as as strategy.
It's happened before. For example, President Carter pardoned all Vietnam War draft dodgers.
“It’s happened before” doesn’t actually mean that it is legally effective, unless it has also been challenged and prevailed in court.
He doesn't even know who they are, he can pardon them only nominally not as a category.
Execute for treason?
Especially difficult after having spent a year praising (often violent) protests.
This is what happens when a country's leaders actively dog whistle an incitement to violence and others hitch their political future to fiction & propaganda instead of fact.
It's not really a dog whistle. Just a few hours ago the President told his supporters gathered near the Whitehouse to march to the Capitol.
Anyone with a brain knew this was coming.
Honestly it's shocking how many on HN try to defend it. This isn't a republican or democrat issue anymore after what Pence and McConnell said today.
The man is a tyrant, and we should all be thankful it is not far, far worse than this.
Honestly it's shocking how many on HN try to defend it. This isn't a republican or democrat issue anymore after what Pence and McConnell said today.
The man is a tyrant, and we should all be thankful it is not far, far worse than this.
> Honestly it's shocking how many on HN try to defend it.
Noticing a tendency among many in the tech community to take apolitical & "centrist" positions on many of these issues, which usually ends up with the blaming of "both sides".
Being in the center when one side is so intent on going to the extreme right is not a virtue.
Noticing a tendency among many in the tech community to take apolitical & "centrist" positions on many of these issues, which usually ends up with the blaming of "both sides".
Being in the center when one side is so intent on going to the extreme right is not a virtue.
Most of them aren't actually centrists, as their centrist positions always impugn the left and forgive the right. They never play the "both sides are evil" card when talking about cancel culture or Benghazi or Obama drone-strikes or BLM, both sides are only evil when Trump, Republicans or Conservatives are criticized (implying that any criticism of the right is simply hypocrisy or left-wing tribalism, and therefore invalid.)
I agree with you; it’s disheartening to see how many people here are suggesting that “both sides” are more or less the same and that the real problem is the left and “MSM”. I expected more from this community.
My nuclear family has been panicking about this day for months. I’ve assured them a coup is infeasible because Trump is incompetent. I have tried to get them to appreciate CGPGrey’s Rules for Rulers. Trump is too short sighted to realize that he needs to keep the keys to power happy. The military leaders will be happy to see him go.
> The man is a tyrant, and we should all be thankful it is not far, far worse than this.
Yes, we all dodged a bullet. This person could be "the Leader of the Free World" for the next 4 years.
Yes, we all dodged a bullet. This person could be "the Leader of the Free World" for the next 4 years.
It's a pretty sad response, then. I was expecting like a thousand mall ninjas with ARs.
If this is all that side can muster, the hand-wringing about dogwhistles and complaints about the president's claims are even more overblown and irrelevant than they seemed.
If this is all that side can muster, the hand-wringing about dogwhistles and complaints about the president's claims are even more overblown and irrelevant than they seemed.
For the first time in our history the transfer of power has turned violent. One of the most important buildings in the country was violently invaded by a mob of rioters, resulting in 1 death so far.
The fact that you or someone else thought it could be worse doesn't stop this being one of the worst assaults on our system of democracy in our history.
The fact that you or someone else thought it could be worse doesn't stop this being one of the worst assaults on our system of democracy in our history.
I don't think this has anything to do with the transfer of power.
The power is being transferred, this protest has no bearing on that.
The power is being transferred, this protest has no bearing on that.
It was a riot against the exact process of the transfer of power, rioting under unproven & consistently debunked accusations literally as Congress was officiating the transfer of power. And it actually disrupted that process.
The fact that the transfer of power will occur doesn't mean there wasn't violence involved along the way.
The fact that the transfer of power will occur doesn't mean there wasn't violence involved along the way.
Guns has been drawn inside the barricaded senate chamber.
https://missouriindependent.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/g...
https://missouriindependent.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/g...
A woman has been shot inside the capitol building by Capitol Police.
Not going to post links, but there is video on Twitter.
Not going to post links, but there is video on Twitter.
Are the people with big guns in that video law enforcement or protesters?
Those are fed security. They dress formally because they are on the floor similar to Secret Service (and they very well could be Treasury leadership protection it looks like the grey suit might have a hard pin on but i can't tell)
If they're wearing masks I'd wager it's not the protestors.
MSNBC is reporting the woman has died.
metalliqaz(1)
House* chamber
At least one shot so far, didn't say if it was outside or inside.
Edit: inside.
Edit: inside.
Where are the police? Is the police force and now the national guard not controlled by the DC Mayor's office?
I don't understand how they weather 1000 protests a year in the capitol and weren't prepared for this.
I don't understand how they weather 1000 protests a year in the capitol and weren't prepared for this.
> Is the police force and now the national guard not controlled by the DC Mayor's office?
No. National Guard units are normally controlled by state governors, but since DC is not a state and has no governor, the DC National Guard is the only guard unit that reports directly to the president [1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_National_...
No. National Guard units are normally controlled by state governors, but since DC is not a state and has no governor, the DC National Guard is the only guard unit that reports directly to the president [1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_National_...
I'm not sure that's correct. See this AP article [1] talking about the national guard troops that were approved and are already in the capitol now.
> Because D.C. does not have a governor, the designated commander of the city’s National Guard is Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy. Any D.C. requests for Guard deployments have to be approved by him.
[1] https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-donald-trump-politics-e...
In any event, where are the Capitol Police? How were they not prepared for this?
> Because D.C. does not have a governor, the designated commander of the city’s National Guard is Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy. Any D.C. requests for Guard deployments have to be approved by him.
[1] https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-donald-trump-politics-e...
In any event, where are the Capitol Police? How were they not prepared for this?
It seems to be even more complicated than that actually, on second glance. Also from the Wikipedia article:
> Supervision and control of D.C. National Guard was delegated by the president to the defense secretary pursuant to Executive Order 10030, 26 January 1949 with authority to designate National Military Establishment officials to administer affairs of the D.C. National Guard. The Army secretary was directed to act in all matters pertaining to the ground component, and the Air Force secretary was directed to act in all matters pertaining to the air component.
> The National Guard may be called into federal service in response to a call by the president or Congress.
So control is apparently shared in some way between the president, secdef, congress, and secretaries of the army and air force. But it does seem that the Army secretary's authority is delegated by the president, who remains the "commander in chief" of the guard unit.
Of course the president is commander in chief of all guard units when they're called into federal service, but I wonder if service in DC is considered "federal" in that sense. DC is a federal entity, but a guard unit serving its home jurisdiction isn't usually what's meant by "federal service".
Military organization is weird.
In any case, it's not controlled by the mayor of DC. She can only request an activation (which she did).
> Supervision and control of D.C. National Guard was delegated by the president to the defense secretary pursuant to Executive Order 10030, 26 January 1949 with authority to designate National Military Establishment officials to administer affairs of the D.C. National Guard. The Army secretary was directed to act in all matters pertaining to the ground component, and the Air Force secretary was directed to act in all matters pertaining to the air component.
> The National Guard may be called into federal service in response to a call by the president or Congress.
So control is apparently shared in some way between the president, secdef, congress, and secretaries of the army and air force. But it does seem that the Army secretary's authority is delegated by the president, who remains the "commander in chief" of the guard unit.
Of course the president is commander in chief of all guard units when they're called into federal service, but I wonder if service in DC is considered "federal" in that sense. DC is a federal entity, but a guard unit serving its home jurisdiction isn't usually what's meant by "federal service".
Military organization is weird.
In any case, it's not controlled by the mayor of DC. She can only request an activation (which she did).
Half a trillion dollars a year and the DoD can’t even keep the capital secure. I’m embarrassed for the entire US military industrial complex right now. They look like a bunch of freshmen to the world.
"The DOD" (actually just a single National Guard unit) was ordered not to by their civilian leadership until a few hours ago. This has nothing to do with the military's budget or capabilities and everything to do with civilian oversight of it, which is a very good thing. It would be far more embarrassing to have the kind of military that could act on its own accord to secure the capital, which is what a large fraction of "the world" that's supposedly looking down their noses at them has.
It would sure be nice if these kind of histrionics stayed off of HN.
It would sure be nice if these kind of histrionics stayed off of HN.
I’m not quite sure I understand your point. A military’s job shouldn’t include security of the legislative head? Half a trillion dollars a year is absurd for defense and having the capital security being entirely handled by capital police begs the question: where are my tax dollars going? The obvious answer is to keep the military industrial complex afloat.
Don’t be disparaging. This is a real conversation even if you don’t like what it brings to light.
An actual alternative narrative is that the executive branch willfully did not defend the capital. That makes this a more standard coup.
Don’t be disparaging. This is a real conversation even if you don’t like what it brings to light.
An actual alternative narrative is that the executive branch willfully did not defend the capital. That makes this a more standard coup.
> A military’s job shouldn’t include security of the legislative head?
Yes, our military does not do that. That is the job of law enforcement. Look up the Posse Comitatus Act.
There's a lot to be said about the evils of the military industrial complex, but you're making that point in the worst possible way. Complaining that your tax dollars are being wasted because the military is too lazy to perform duties that they are explicitly not allowed to perform for very good reasons does not bring anything to light.
> An actual alternative narrative is that the executive branch willfully did not defend the capital.
It isn't a matter of narrative, it is a simple fact that the executive branch chose not to authorize an exception to Posse Comitatus in this case, which is what the National Guard does and requires specific authorization each and every time. Without that authorization, the military has no more authority in D.C. than the NYPD does. It's quite simply outside of their jurisdiction.
Yes, our military does not do that. That is the job of law enforcement. Look up the Posse Comitatus Act.
There's a lot to be said about the evils of the military industrial complex, but you're making that point in the worst possible way. Complaining that your tax dollars are being wasted because the military is too lazy to perform duties that they are explicitly not allowed to perform for very good reasons does not bring anything to light.
> An actual alternative narrative is that the executive branch willfully did not defend the capital.
It isn't a matter of narrative, it is a simple fact that the executive branch chose not to authorize an exception to Posse Comitatus in this case, which is what the National Guard does and requires specific authorization each and every time. Without that authorization, the military has no more authority in D.C. than the NYPD does. It's quite simply outside of their jurisdiction.
I wonder how many Capitol police officers it takes to clear the chamber and get all the lawmakers to safety, and how far they accompany them. They certainly do seem to be scarce.
Why would the capitol police stop right wing protesters? They're on the same side
[deleted]
This is federal government property with many many thousands of federal law officers available to protect from across many departments.
This was either an unforgivable lack of intelligence/preparation OR another example of the gross disparity in treatment between the armed MAGA crowd and for instance black Americans and BLM protestors.
As a comparison, the feds deployed thousands of officers in the District and across the county during BLM protests, often times pushing beyond fed building perimeters which many don't think is legal. Some of the videos with scary unmarked officers/arrests which are terrifying. I use this photo as an example of the crazy policing Trump ordered to scare voters
https://s.abcnews.com/images/US/national-guard-lincoln-memor...
This was either an unforgivable lack of intelligence/preparation OR another example of the gross disparity in treatment between the armed MAGA crowd and for instance black Americans and BLM protestors.
As a comparison, the feds deployed thousands of officers in the District and across the county during BLM protests, often times pushing beyond fed building perimeters which many don't think is legal. Some of the videos with scary unmarked officers/arrests which are terrifying. I use this photo as an example of the crazy policing Trump ordered to scare voters
https://s.abcnews.com/images/US/national-guard-lincoln-memor...
The riot is winding down. The Capitol Police cleared the building hours ago, and many of the crowd just hanging around have left. More cops from Virginia and DC have arrived, and are slowly pushing the remaining crowd back.
Tomorrow, Congress will finish counting the electoral votes. I suspect that some, if not all, of the planned objections will not be made.
Tomorrow, Congress will finish counting the electoral votes. I suspect that some, if not all, of the planned objections will not be made.
If they continue with the objections it might further cement some moderates to become permanent Democratic voters. Today's events will no doubt shape the political landscape for years to come, and there is no turning it back.
These voters will continually fear what it means to elect a Republican, because should they lose in the subsequent election, there is now an established history of violence and death -- a woman has died in the Capitol today.
These voters will continually fear what it means to elect a Republican, because should they lose in the subsequent election, there is now an established history of violence and death -- a woman has died in the Capitol today.
According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Soviet_coup_d%27état_atte... the russians were able to change their dysfunctional system with less deadly violence than just last night's 4 fatalities.
> The 1991 Soviet coup d'état attempt, also known as the August Coup,[a] was a failed attempt made by Communist leaders of the Soviet Union to take control of the country from Mikhail Gorbachev, who was Soviet President and General Secretary.
It appears the attempt failed.
It appears the attempt failed.
Congress is going to try and reconvene to finish counting the votes tonight.
Both Pelosi and McConnell have said that, so it should happen.
Some staffer had the presence of mind to grab the actual electoral votes signed by each state and got them out of the House chamber before the rioters came in. So that important detail is not a problem.
Some staffer had the presence of mind to grab the actual electoral votes signed by each state and got them out of the House chamber before the rioters came in. So that important detail is not a problem.
Yes, and most of the planned objections will not be made. Looks like the plan is to debate the one already made, for Arizona, go through the list quickly, announce the result, and go home.
I sure hope so. There were dudes inside Congress waving rebel flags. Trump and friends probably didn't count on that when they were posturing on Twitter.
Hopefully, that scares them straight and cools some heads. And not just Trump, but the entire political class who've been playing loose with divisive/identity politics for the last decade.
Hopefully, that scares them straight and cools some heads. And not just Trump, but the entire political class who've been playing loose with divisive/identity politics for the last decade.
There were dudes inside Congress waving rebel flags. Trump and friends probably didn't count on that when they were posturing on Twitter.
Twitter has finally had it with Trump. His last two tweets were removed for TOS violations.
Twitter has finally had it with Trump. His last two tweets were removed for TOS violations.
> Trump and friends probably didn’t count on that when they were posturing on Twitter.
Of course not, they were hoping the mere threat would get a sufficient number of Republican lawmakers to immediately and publicly side with rejecting the election results (or get Pence to recant and do so, refusing to open the dispute votes), so that the mob could switch to celebration rather than carrying out violence.
Of course not, they were hoping the mere threat would get a sufficient number of Republican lawmakers to immediately and publicly side with rejecting the election results (or get Pence to recant and do so, refusing to open the dispute votes), so that the mob could switch to celebration rather than carrying out violence.
As far as rebellions go, that one was pretty understaffed.
This is a media frenzy, nothing more, IMO.
This is a media frenzy, nothing more, IMO.
You have an unusually poor grasp of history if rioters forcing lawmakers out of the US Capitol is something you view as “a media frenzy, nothing more.”
Yes. The number were tiny. Pretty much non violent. An unarmed protester got shot by security.
As they have said in congress already, all that was achieved was the vote was delayed for a few hours.
As they have said in congress already, all that was achieved was the vote was delayed for a few hours.
History in the making right here. This[1] might be an early contender for image of the year
[1]https://twitter.com/igorbobic/status/1346906369232920576/pho...
[1]https://twitter.com/igorbobic/status/1346906369232920576/pho...
As far as photos go, this photo isn’t well composed or evocative of anything. Compare this photo to the one of the Ohio COVID protests last year (https://slate.com/human-interest/2020/04/ohio-protester-zomb...). I’m sure better photographs of the protest will emerge soon.
This one is wow (https://twitter.com/ByMikeBaker/status/1346912374406615042).
This one is wow (https://twitter.com/ByMikeBaker/status/1346912374406615042).
Doesn't compare to this one: https://twitter.com/stevennelson10/status/134690995241006284...
I have difficulty believing it's real, but it's from the account of a legit reporter. I predict, this will be one of the iconic images from the 53rd week of 2020.
I have difficulty believing it's real, but it's from the account of a legit reporter. I predict, this will be one of the iconic images from the 53rd week of 2020.
That photo has "Escape from New York" [1] vibes. John Carpenter is a genius.
[1] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082340/
[1] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082340/
It's this one for me, with the guns drawn at the entrance to the House Floor https://twitter.com/GettyImagesNews/status/13469076714259374...
I rather prefer this one, from the same thread - better composition, and the CSA flag adds some oomph
https://twitter.com/igorbobic/status/1346902299466203145
https://twitter.com/igorbobic/status/1346902299466203145
I would not want terrorists personally honored by such a distinction. Seems like something they'd aim for.
Here is a guy occupying the senate chair: https://twitter.com/TheRachLindsay/status/134691299372915916...
[deleted]
Perhaps this one:
https://twitter.com/igorbobic/status/1346906369232920576
https://twitter.com/igorbobic/status/1346906369232920576
Someone on reddit made an interesting comment about how many foreign agents are using this opportunity to plant bugs in various locations.
I was just thinking that one of those loonies is probably planting a bomb somewhere hidden. Security is going to have to do an insane sweep of the place once before congress is allowed back in.
Edit: Also, if someone wanted to go to war with the US, it looks like it'd be pretty trivial to shut down the central leadership... This is quite an event.
Edit: Also, if someone wanted to go to war with the US, it looks like it'd be pretty trivial to shut down the central leadership... This is quite an event.
> I was just thinking that one of those loonies is probably planting a bomb somewhere hidden.
This is not impossible, CNN are reporting at least two bombs have been rendered safe by EODs
This is not impossible, CNN are reporting at least two bombs have been rendered safe by EODs
And yet, we are supposed to follow the wisdom of the top comment with this all being about some "Free Speech" argument.
There will no doubt be an incredibly thorough sweep of all chambers and offices of Congress to ensure the security of the facility, once the building is fully cleared.
Who knows if congressional members can reasonably safely meet before such a sweep occurs.
Who knows if congressional members can reasonably safely meet before such a sweep occurs.
"Moderate" Republicans tolerated and have associated with the MAGA wing. This is their Sudeten moment.
Arguably this is the first successful assault on the capital building since 1814, when British troops took over Washington DC and burned the White House down.
There was an shooting attack in the Capitol in 1954 that injured 5 members of congress: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_United_States_Capitol_sho...
In addition to the 1954 gallery shooting there was the document door shooting where someone killed two capitol police officers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_United_States_Capitol_sho...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_United_States_Capitol_sho...
I wonder how different this headline would be if the latitude of this event was just a few degrees to the south...
Depends on if it was in favour of the US or not.
If it's a party that wants to execute on US foreign policy, it'll be a heroic story of freedom fighters trying to retake their country from oppressive <whatever>
And if it's against a government that executes US foreign policy, it'll be a story about an attempted coup by evil terrorists.
You can look at venezuela for all the examples you need. Guaido and the the couple Americans that tried to assasinate maduro
If it's a party that wants to execute on US foreign policy, it'll be a heroic story of freedom fighters trying to retake their country from oppressive <whatever>
And if it's against a government that executes US foreign policy, it'll be a story about an attempted coup by evil terrorists.
You can look at venezuela for all the examples you need. Guaido and the the couple Americans that tried to assasinate maduro
Attempted Coup in Guatemala City; Freedom Fighters Say Aliens Stole the Election.
I mean, you just need to look at Belarus
The difference between the police/military presence when people are protesting the death of unarmed civilians and this nonsense is glaring and very telling.
While violence itself cannot be accepted, I have a lot more respect for a mob that shows up at the doors of Congress than one that shows up at Best Buy.
That's a bullshit cheap shot. The protests this past summer were characterized by non violence, not by showing up at Best Buy to loot.
There was violence and property destruction. But if you count the number of people that protested peacefully and the number of people that engaged in violence and destruction of property, there's one that is obviously vastly larger than the other, and it's the peaceful protesters.
There was violence and property destruction. But if you count the number of people that protested peacefully and the number of people that engaged in violence and destruction of property, there's one that is obviously vastly larger than the other, and it's the peaceful protesters.
> That's a bullshit cheap shot. The protests this past summer were characterized by non violence, not by showing up at Best Buy to loot.
I think the phrase you’re looking for is “firey but mostly peaceful”: https://youtu.be/6preTw28GWE
> There was violence and property destruction. But if you count the number of people that protested peacefully and the number of people that engaged in violence and destruction of property, there's one that is obviously vastly larger than the other, and it's the peaceful protesters.
If you’re protesting and looters show up to take advantage of the chaos, then shame on them. But if you keep showing up to “protest” and all it’s doing is enabling more looting, then you’re not a peaceful protester. You’re aiding and abetting the looters.
Again, if it a protest against the government then take it to the government. March on the capital. March on city hall. Planning marches through retail districts isn’t done by accident. They knew exactly what they were doing.
I think the phrase you’re looking for is “firey but mostly peaceful”: https://youtu.be/6preTw28GWE
> There was violence and property destruction. But if you count the number of people that protested peacefully and the number of people that engaged in violence and destruction of property, there's one that is obviously vastly larger than the other, and it's the peaceful protesters.
If you’re protesting and looters show up to take advantage of the chaos, then shame on them. But if you keep showing up to “protest” and all it’s doing is enabling more looting, then you’re not a peaceful protester. You’re aiding and abetting the looters.
Again, if it a protest against the government then take it to the government. March on the capital. March on city hall. Planning marches through retail districts isn’t done by accident. They knew exactly what they were doing.
Was there a big protest crowd in the parking lot there in the video, or just a bunch of opportunists looting?
I don't recall it being a pattern that marches particularly went through retail districts. In my small town, if you got a large crowd around city hall you'd have people in a retail district because that's where it's located…
That video looks like a typical big box store located off of a freeway or whatever, and just shows people actively engaged in looting.
I don't recall it being a pattern that marches particularly went through retail districts. In my small town, if you got a large crowd around city hall you'd have people in a retail district because that's where it's located…
That video looks like a typical big box store located off of a freeway or whatever, and just shows people actively engaged in looting.
This is a failure of leadership by the republicans - plain and simple. I don't care if this comment is perceived as partisan, it's a statement of fact. If the republican leadership had unequivocally come out against the narrative that the election was stolen, this wouldn't be happening.
Edit: Yes, it's true that the top leader and his acolytes have engineered this outcome, but the majority of the republican leadership did not want this and do not benefit from this, they were (with some exceptions) simply too cowardly to speak out against it.
Edit: Yes, it's true that the top leader and his acolytes have engineered this outcome, but the majority of the republican leadership did not want this and do not benefit from this, they were (with some exceptions) simply too cowardly to speak out against it.
They had their chance to do the right thing last January. Instead of holding a fair impeachment trial in the Senate, with witnesses, they chose to let this clown show go on. They are complicit.
"Impeachment trials" are not really designed to be fair in the way actual trials are. They are legally designed to be a popularity contest among the legislature; hence why the Republican party was able to block it, and also why they would have been able to vote no if they had decided not to block it. Honestly, letting the term run out and having the president lose in a typical election is probably the least debatable way to change the president. There is some historical precedent for impeachments being used as political tools, while elections are wreathed in tradition and legitimacy.
> letting the term run out and having the president lose in a typical election is probably the least debatable way to change the president
Except that didn't work out, did it? Remember he was impeached for trying to cheat at an election. And people (lots of people) warned he'd continue on that path.
I mean, let's be honest: it would have been better in hindsight to have actually removed him from office.
Except that didn't work out, did it? Remember he was impeached for trying to cheat at an election. And people (lots of people) warned he'd continue on that path.
I mean, let's be honest: it would have been better in hindsight to have actually removed him from office.
Well, we're comparing reality, the case of a lost election, (thousands of protestors without broad support) to a counterfactual, the case of an impeachment (a million protestors? support from every Republican?).
I’m not sure what would even happen if the GOP voted to condemn their own president. To whom would frustrated GOP voters petition then? Would they fracture into a third party?
The reality nearest to our own where the impeachment attempt succeeded is the one where the Senate was D-majority that year. Only a few seats would have to be different for that, whereas the counterfactual of republicans voting against one of their own would require a shift in the very elements of politics. Imagine a world where a D-majority legislature impeached a Republican president. Instead of pointing to an election, Democrats would have to point to a 1000 page report that nobody wants to read. Republicans would be calling it a "political move" and the whole party would be unified against its fairness.
>I’m not sure what would even happen if the GOP voted to condemn their own president.
The GOP having had enough of GOP President Nixon that they were going to impeach and remove him is what led to him resigning first.
And the country got on just fine.
The GOP having had enough of GOP President Nixon that they were going to impeach and remove him is what led to him resigning first.
And the country got on just fine.
I'm not doubting they would've voted no even if they'd called witnesses and had a real trial. But (and this is speculation) there'd be a lot more people aware of Trump's corrupt conduct in office and he would've lost by a far larger margin.
Although...who am I kidding. The right-wing media would probably have covered the full impeachment trial in the same way they covered the House impeachment proceedings. Just play a silent video of politicians talking, and have their own pundits say "This is BS we won't even insult you by making you listen to it".
Although...who am I kidding. The right-wing media would probably have covered the full impeachment trial in the same way they covered the House impeachment proceedings. Just play a silent video of politicians talking, and have their own pundits say "This is BS we won't even insult you by making you listen to it".
One of the articles of impeachment was on obstruction of justice. In a normal court that would have been open and shut. The White House was extraordinary and blatant with the obstruction. It was well documented. The conviction on the obstruction charge was voted down by an even larger margin than the collusion charge, which I thought was strange because thanks to all of the obstruction the hard evidence was a bit lacking. They had few documents to work with because the Trump Whitehouse explicitly refused to honor all of the subpoenas they were served.
Basically he knew that the Senate would cover for any crime so long as he delivered the votes, so he ran the place like a mob boss.
Basically he knew that the Senate would cover for any crime so long as he delivered the votes, so he ran the place like a mob boss.
The other article of impeachment was on abuse of power, not collusion. It was a nice way of accusing Trump of extorting a bribe.
The republican leadership is the person who is leading this coup.
What is the point of a national guard if they can't be used to defend the capitol?
The DC National Guard, unique among all other guards, is under the command of the President. A state governor can call up that state's Guard, but the government of D.C. cannot.
They were requested by the DC Mayor and approved by the Pentagon for deployment yesterday by... But no idea where tf they are.
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/04/politics/muriel-bowser-dc...
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/04/politics/muriel-bowser-dc...
I was glad to hear McConnel and Pence finally (FINALLY) do the right thing.
They were speaking out of both sides of their mouth, per usual. They deserve no credit, they only acted when their actions would have no consequences.
Don't say that. That makes people reluctant to be adults and do what needs to be done. People deserve some recognition for, eventually, doing just that.
edit: Guys. By resorting to ad hominems and offering no incentive for changing one's mind, you are practically guaranteeing calcification and re-entrenchment. Are you happy that you contributed to the situation in a positive way?
edit: Guys. By resorting to ad hominems and offering no incentive for changing one's mind, you are practically guaranteeing calcification and re-entrenchment. Are you happy that you contributed to the situation in a positive way?
Once is an accident, twice is a coincidence, three times is a pattern.
Let them earn respect by demonstrating that they understand their wrongs and taking ongoing substantive action to change.
Let them earn respect by demonstrating that they understand their wrongs and taking ongoing substantive action to change.
> offering no incentive for changing one's mind
What offers even less incentive is when someone knows they will never be held accountable.
Give them some credit when they give a mild amount of evidence that they have actually changed their ways. Doing the right thing in a single instance is not enough evidence.
What offers even less incentive is when someone knows they will never be held accountable.
Give them some credit when they give a mild amount of evidence that they have actually changed their ways. Doing the right thing in a single instance is not enough evidence.
Mitch: "I'm sorry baby, take me back. I promise I won't do it again."
I've been in abusive relationships, fuck a single apology, change materializes due to consequences. There need to be consequences first.
I've been in abusive relationships, fuck a single apology, change materializes due to consequences. There need to be consequences first.
When the murderer stops stabbing his victim for a second to take a breath you dont commend him. These are adults. They are malicious. They are not trying to do the right thing, and deserve no commendation.
You don't appease Hitler, you stop him.
You don't appease Hitler, you stop him.
This is an OK attitude to young children, not adults.
And one day trump will finally be Presidential (TM)
Any one off act is meaningless. What matters is continued, persistent good behaviour. Once in a blue moon is just bad behaviour.
Your standards are too low, and encourages people with bad behaviour to not change. After all, you get accolades for doing one good thing in a sea of bad, but get admonished for one bad thing amidst a sea of good
Any one off act is meaningless. What matters is continued, persistent good behaviour. Once in a blue moon is just bad behaviour.
Your standards are too low, and encourages people with bad behaviour to not change. After all, you get accolades for doing one good thing in a sea of bad, but get admonished for one bad thing amidst a sea of good
You give recognition to a toddler when it learns how to use the toilet, not when grown men in positions of responsibility do the bare minimum it's expected of them
You mean, treat them like special snowflakes?
Look if you still fault them for doing the right thing why should they do the right thing? Give it a rest! Acknowledge that they have done the right thing now! People deserve credit for taking the correct moral stand unlike the terrorist group attacking Washington DC right now!
> moral stand
They're refusing to undermine the system from which their own legitimacy and power derives. There's nothing moral about it.
They're refusing to undermine the system from which their own legitimacy and power derives. There's nothing moral about it.
Agreed. We must allow for people to change their mind.
They had so many chances to do the right thing though. It still is good that they didn't go crazy hysterical like Trump and eventually accepted but I won't cut them any cookie for it.
I wasn't sure if McConnel finally found a conscious or if he was simply pissed off at Trump for spreading the "Stop the Steal" nonsense that likely suppressed a little bit of Republican turnout and lost them the Ossoff/Perdue race. That speech seemed carefully calculated to draw the maximum ire of the President.
I'm sorry, but WHY are you glad about that? If anything that infuriates me more. They have known about these threats for months if not years and decided to do nothing until actual violence was at their doorsteps.
But only when violence was on their literal doorsteps.
[deleted]
This isn’t a failure of leadership like my code failed to compile just now. This is leadership with a vision.
Many Republicans on TV agree with you.
The party needs to split into the anti-democracy, pro-Trump faction, and the rest of the party. The moderate wing could easily pull some people that voted Democrat this year, and form a stable, coalition government.
This would help de-radicalize our political system.
The party needs to split into the anti-democracy, pro-Trump faction, and the rest of the party. The moderate wing could easily pull some people that voted Democrat this year, and form a stable, coalition government.
This would help de-radicalize our political system.
The democrats could peal out their conservatives too.
Then you could have the progressives, the moderates, the ultra conservatives, and I guess a Texas separation party, and it'll be like Canada
Then you could have the progressives, the moderates, the ultra conservatives, and I guess a Texas separation party, and it'll be like Canada
The Republican leadership doesn't lose out from this(this won't flip an anti-abortioner's vote), but have a slight chance at winning out.
It makes sense that they'd leave it alone to do it's thing
It makes sense that they'd leave it alone to do it's thing
[deleted]
The failure of leadership by the Republicans occurred in 2016 when no other candidate could manage to beat Trump in the primary. The rest was just the other train cars continuing to derail.
> This is a failure of leadership by the republicans - plain and simple.
The cops have a strange affinity for certain kinds of 'protesters' too, we all know it would end differently if BLM or 'Antifa' did this.
The cops have a strange affinity for certain kinds of 'protesters' too, we all know it would end differently if BLM or 'Antifa' did this.
>The cops have a strange affinity for certain kinds of 'protesters' too, we all know it would end differently if BLM or 'Antifa' did this.
You mean they would have let the protestors occupy several blocks of the city while declaring independence for several months until their private security forces murdered too many black teenagers?
You mean they would have let the protestors occupy several blocks of the city while declaring independence for several months until their private security forces murdered too many black teenagers?
I went to protests all summer where the cops were beating the shit out of people for standing on the street outside an empty building. They sure as hell weren't removing the cordons and taking selfies with people inside.
Justsignedup(2)
razius(2)
This is terrorism, plain and simple. Donald Trump is the leader of a terrorist cult.
I think that the republicans have benefitted a lot from hyperbole and insults. People need to tone down their language
Shots have been fired in the Capitol building.
The US Capitol has been stormed into and guns have now been drawn in the chamber of the Senate.
I think it is also time for people to face the fact that this is not hyperbole.
I think it is also time for people to face the fact that this is not hyperbole.
The cult leader gets angrier and threatens his own followers who defy his demands for fealty. The rejection makes them all angry, cult leader and followers.
Trump and Trump supporters have been more caustic by far to Republicans who don't toe the line. They seek retribution and engage in threatening behavior, including death threats.
This morning Trump expressed his displeasure at the Vice President's unwillingness to engage in illegal activity, and then Trump sent a mob to the capitol where Pence was doing his job.
Four people are dead on a day of performative action, merely to count votes, with an outcome that was guaranteed on December 8.
Following this violence and death, most Republicans in the House supported and voted for this cynical, delusional lie of their cult leader. And had very little to say about the mob that was send toward them, by him. They had more lies to tell.
Trump spent five years of the previous presidency trying to delegitimize that president too, just like he's trying to delegitimize the next one.
Don't lecture people on how they should become milquetoast.
Trump and Trump supporters have been more caustic by far to Republicans who don't toe the line. They seek retribution and engage in threatening behavior, including death threats.
This morning Trump expressed his displeasure at the Vice President's unwillingness to engage in illegal activity, and then Trump sent a mob to the capitol where Pence was doing his job.
Four people are dead on a day of performative action, merely to count votes, with an outcome that was guaranteed on December 8.
Following this violence and death, most Republicans in the House supported and voted for this cynical, delusional lie of their cult leader. And had very little to say about the mob that was send toward them, by him. They had more lies to tell.
Trump spent five years of the previous presidency trying to delegitimize that president too, just like he's trying to delegitimize the next one.
Don't lecture people on how they should become milquetoast.
Accurately describing what is going on is not hyperbole. People like you gaslighting us about what we see is what has allowed Trump to get away with so much.
> If the republican leadership had unequivocally come out against the narrative that the election was stolen, this wouldn't be happening.
They all came out against Trump when this started in 2016. Was not even a speed bump.
They all came out against Trump when this started in 2016. Was not even a speed bump.
The senators could have voted to convict convict during the impeachment trial.
That would have been more than a speed bump. They had the opportunity to act, chose not to (well except for Romney).
That would have been more than a speed bump. They had the opportunity to act, chose not to (well except for Romney).
You can very fairly blame them for not removing him. I don't think you can blame them for the storming as Trump has the support of the base. They do not.
Trump's been riling his base up with lies and almost everyone important in the republican party has been doing nearly nothing to disagree. They're supposed to be about half of our elected leadership. They can be blamed for inaction.
If they were openly and clearly disagreeing with Trump, then they wouldn't be at fault. But they're giving tacit approval.
If they were openly and clearly disagreeing with Trump, then they wouldn't be at fault. But they're giving tacit approval.
I would blame those who haven't taken issue with the spreading of conspiracy theories and certainly those who spread conspiracy theories when it is convenient for them that leads to this kind of thing.
Cruz, Hawley, et al. helped escalate the situation to this point. This would not have happened if they weren't planning on protesting certification in the first place. There are degrees of culpability here. It obviously starts with the mob itself, then Trump, then his supporters in congress, then other Republicans who hesitated to accept the election results, etc.
Most of them came out against Trump only so long as it didn't matter, and in the least effectual way they could. They also almost universally stopped even pretending once he was elected.
Well the Republican “leadership” is no longer a monolithic entity, it’s split between Trumpists and establishment types. The former have been leading it all. The latter have been speaking out against it all along, but to no effect.
There's barely any "establishment" members left in the Republican party. They were primaried to death in the past couple of decades, or chose to quit when they saw what direction their party was heading. Like it or not Trump and his brand of politics is the modern Republican party.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-there-are-so-few-mo...
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-there-are-so-few-mo...
Establishment democrats also are their lunch to an extent.
A pro business, corporate tax cut Democrat isn't all that different from a pro business, corporate tax cut republican
A pro business, corporate tax cut Democrat isn't all that different from a pro business, corporate tax cut republican
The writing was on the wall and they knew it. Now that Trump doesn't benefit them, they will act like they don't support him.
Honest question: does anyone think this would have happened if Twitter and Facebook did not exist?
I think there is a decent chance: Fox News, talk radio Limbaugh types, Rupert Murdoch media, and even the likes of CNN have all been fomenting this for ratings and $ for decades.
Fox and right radio have pushed insane junk that millions actually believe. It created the widespread tinder before social media.
Fox and right radio have pushed insane junk that millions actually believe. It created the widespread tinder before social media.
Yugoslavia had neither Twitter nor Facebook, and that got much worse...
Obviously it's all conjecture, but I don't think so. Essentially all the mainstream news sites have not gone along with the claims of fraud. The only place Trump has an audience for all his nonsense is on Twitter. And Twitter marking all his tweets as misleading does nothing to deter his more extreme followers. I really hope they just ban him someday.
OAN is out there doing the dirty work on TV that even Fox will not do.
I'd posit that outlets like OAN wouldn't exist without social media platforms hinting that there's a market opportunity to be exploited.
Human history is filled with civil wars, violent revolutions, angry protests, etc much before internet & social media.
Social media is a catalyst and internet is the mega-phone/amplifier which makes lot of things precipitate quickly than before.
Social media is a catalyst and internet is the mega-phone/amplifier which makes lot of things precipitate quickly than before.
If Social media and the news media were not around to radicalize and polarize Americans, this would not have happened along with many other events this year :)
Including making someone wonder when reading your username[0] xD
0: https://greatawakening.win/
0: https://greatawakening.win/
The President himself is directing his followers to attack the US capitol, and HN blames Twitter and Facebook.
https://twitter.com/byaaroncdavis/status/1346908166030766080
It looks like Defense Dept. denied DC's request for National Guard.
Update: DoD denies the report, but says they haven't acted upon request.
It looks like Defense Dept. denied DC's request for National Guard.
Update: DoD denies the report, but says they haven't acted upon request.
Looks like Pence actually gave the order to deploy the Guard, not Trump. Trump was reticent.
Whole thing is a joke. Police literally let them in:
https://twitter.com/i/status/1346932484152430596
...might just as well have given them a guided tour
https://twitter.com/i/status/1346932484152430596
...might just as well have given them a guided tour
That the police let them in makes this whole thing quite the opposite of a joke.
What do these protestors hope to accomplish?
They say that they believe an election was stolen (without evidence), and that they want the democratic election to be overturned (according to their signs).
According to some of the more conspiratorial comments in this thread, a coup.
The actual answer is probably that they do not believe the claims of election fraud have been sufficiently investigated. I'm sure they want a more thorough investigation to be held before the election results are officially recognized by congress.
That and they're just angry people who have resorted to rioting - like how a toddler resorts to a tantrum when it doesn't get its way. This appears to be an increasingly common theme with modern US politics.
The actual answer is probably that they do not believe the claims of election fraud have been sufficiently investigated. I'm sure they want a more thorough investigation to be held before the election results are officially recognized by congress.
That and they're just angry people who have resorted to rioting - like how a toddler resorts to a tantrum when it doesn't get its way. This appears to be an increasingly common theme with modern US politics.
Let's be honest, no amount of proof would convince them. They would move the goalpost as far as necessary for them to get what they want. They just KNOW they WON the election and I fail to see what would budge their belief.
I think it's a mistake to think that these people argue in good faith. I tried listening to what they have to say and they're not consistent, they're not coherent, they're not honest and they want the truth only if it confirms their beliefs.
I think it's a mistake to think that these people argue in good faith. I tried listening to what they have to say and they're not consistent, they're not coherent, they're not honest and they want the truth only if it confirms their beliefs.
I agree. I'm not saying these people's demands are reasonable. I don't believe they are. OP just asked what their motivation was and I tried to give a serious answer.
I understand. I just happen to side with OP on this, from where I'm standing, it looks like a coup attempt. It doesn't look conspiratorial at all. It looks like they're saying "fair elections" but they're meaning "Republican rule".
People are reasonably concerned about whether Trump will cooperate with the transition of power. But I still think it's really reaching to call this a coup.
There is no organization. There is no plan. There is no sign of a premeditated attempt to overthrow the government. There is just a mob of angry rioters barging into a government building.
I'm curious what you believe constitutes a coup.
There is no organization. There is no plan. There is no sign of a premeditated attempt to overthrow the government. There is just a mob of angry rioters barging into a government building.
I'm curious what you believe constitutes a coup.
Did you hear the rhetoric coming from Don Jr, Giuliani and Trump during the morning of the rally? Certainly sounded like they were calling for action... the opposite of what they tweeted after the lady lost her life in the capital building. No way this protest/mob happens without Trump gassing them up for months without evidence. Trump has disgraced this nation and some of his loyalists are hoping for civil war (as made clear by there custom made ‘MAGA 1/6/21 civil war’ t shirts).
It's not conspiratorial! The president has stated, repeatedly and at length and to many different people, that he'd like to invalidate the election results and make himself the winner. This reflexive dismissal that he could mean what he says is coming very close to ending the country.
That does not make this a coup. This is a riot. While there is no doubt that the rioters want the election results to be overturned, there is no indication that they have the ability or intention to use force to make that a reality.
These are angry people being disruptive and destructive. That's what a riot is. Calling it a coup is conspiratorial.
These are angry people being disruptive and destructive. That's what a riot is. Calling it a coup is conspiratorial.
There are many indications that they have the intention to use force to make it a reality. There was one protester standing at Pence's spot in the chamber, demanding that he come back and deliver the election to Trump!
It's true that they don't seem to have the ability. But they didn't seem to have the ability to take over the Capitol building either. It's very dangerous to look at people trying their hardest to do a coup and dismiss it just because it'd be an uphill battle to make it work.
It's true that they don't seem to have the ability. But they didn't seem to have the ability to take over the Capitol building either. It's very dangerous to look at people trying their hardest to do a coup and dismiss it just because it'd be an uphill battle to make it work.
One person shouting ridiculous demands does not a coup make.
Can we agree on a number then?
I'd consider it a coup if there were an organized group with a remotely plausible plan for overthrowing the government.
Then we should be happy that they weren't a little bit more organized because then you might be looking at your elected officials as hostages. At this point in time their lack of ability should be counted down to luck, and nothing else.
I agree that it's a good thing they weren't more organized. All riots would be more dangerous if they were more organized.
Not sure what to make of the "luck" comment. I suppose we're always lucky that bad things aren't worse than they end up being.
Not sure what to make of the "luck" comment. I suppose we're always lucky that bad things aren't worse than they end up being.
You're well into a utilitarian definition of planning, if it succeeds then it was planned if it doesn't then it wasn't.
The luck is assigned to all of us, including the idiots that tried this.
The luck is assigned to all of us, including the idiots that tried this.
If 60 failed court cases wasn't enough, what could possibly pacify these people. There were dozens upon dozens of opportunities to make the case election fraud had occurred. The courts would have listened if they had anything to present.
I'm starting to believe we need some kind of regulation for companies who profit off of proliferating and re-enforcing echo chambers, though I'm not sure what that would even look like yet.
[deleted]
This comment seems bizarrely aggressive. I read CivBase as expanding on your point—the reason people are refusing to acknowledge the results is (at least in part) because they’re in the echo-chambers being run for profit. Not sure where you got the accusations of shilling from.
Comment removed. Unfortunately, it incorrectly read as a low-brow way of suggesting my perspective was just some corporation pushing a view. On a second read, that wasn't the most judicial interpretation of the comment, and HN rules necessitate applying the strongest plausible interpretation, which is yours.
wolfgang's interpretation is what I intended.
There are only a handful of endings to this... hostage-taking of senators or house representatives, or failing that, occupation of the building.
Considering that the senators and house representatives have been evacuated, the latter is looking more likely.
Considering that the senators and house representatives have been evacuated, the latter is looking more likely.
Question worth asking. I'd suspect this is a huge tactical error because it forces mainstream politicians to pick a side between fascists and non fascists. Presumably most of them are going to pick the non side. This marginalizes the fascists which seems like a forced error.
It depends on how long a game is being played, this is more like 1923 Weimar Republic than 37...
I'm not even from the US, but this might just be the scariest comment I read in this thread so far.
Would you mind explaining to the ignorant people (I'm ignorant people).
Not ignorant, especially if trying to understand something!
The idea with Nazi Germany was that it didn't suddenly pop into existence, as many would believe. It had a long, gradual, slide into it.
In 1932 there was The Beer Hall Putsch [0] when the nazis tried to get the power but failed. As a consequence, Hitler was jailed and wrote his book and after he got out he continued his ascent.
The scary implication of the comment is that even if this coup attempt fails, the USA is down a long slide out of democracy and this is just the beginning.
It is quite scary for me as a non-US citizen because I used to look up to the US. Not anymore. The current world order is supported by US hegemony. Upending this could end up badly for the rest of the world, since transitions of power on the world stage are rarely peaceful.
It's scary because the US seems heading down this road that is eerily similar to what happened in the past. And they say that history doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_Hall_Putsch
The idea with Nazi Germany was that it didn't suddenly pop into existence, as many would believe. It had a long, gradual, slide into it.
In 1932 there was The Beer Hall Putsch [0] when the nazis tried to get the power but failed. As a consequence, Hitler was jailed and wrote his book and after he got out he continued his ascent.
The scary implication of the comment is that even if this coup attempt fails, the USA is down a long slide out of democracy and this is just the beginning.
It is quite scary for me as a non-US citizen because I used to look up to the US. Not anymore. The current world order is supported by US hegemony. Upending this could end up badly for the rest of the world, since transitions of power on the world stage are rarely peaceful.
It's scary because the US seems heading down this road that is eerily similar to what happened in the past. And they say that history doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_Hall_Putsch
Hi all, there you go:
1923::2020/2021
Weimar post-WW1 trauma::Global War On Terror slow pull-out quasi capitulation
Rosewood massacre::Floyd,etc
Ruhr occupation::China's covid resurgence, and next step across the Strait
Treaty of Lausanne ending the Ottoman empire::End of the USA's role-model status
Cooking it slow...
Ps. From Wikipedia: Hyperinflation in Germany has seen the number of marks needed to purchase a single American dollar reach 353,000 – more than 200 times the amount needed at the start of the year. ... I guess this makes it a good target for BTCUSD...
1923::2020/2021
Weimar post-WW1 trauma::Global War On Terror slow pull-out quasi capitulation
Rosewood massacre::Floyd,etc
Ruhr occupation::China's covid resurgence, and next step across the Strait
Treaty of Lausanne ending the Ottoman empire::End of the USA's role-model status
Cooking it slow...
Ps. From Wikipedia: Hyperinflation in Germany has seen the number of marks needed to purchase a single American dollar reach 353,000 – more than 200 times the amount needed at the start of the year. ... I guess this makes it a good target for BTCUSD...
And finally: 1923, failed little Küstrin putsch, easily squashed
[deleted]
Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government or its citizens to further certain political or social objectives.
I highly doubt they have any sort of a plan. Just anger and hatred.
Well, they halted the certification process, didn't they?
[deleted]
treeman79(1)
When I was a kid my family went to DC for a vacation. We walked up the stairs of the capitol and in through the front door. It's a sad state of affairs that barricades are necessary now.
I am shocked and horrified that it is taking so long to clear those who have breached the Capitol. There is more police efficiency and aggression in a run of the mill BLM protest.
Edit: for example: https://twitter.com/RedR1dngHood/status/1346908557560537091
Edit: for example: https://twitter.com/RedR1dngHood/status/1346908557560537091
The stark difference in the response to these "protests" vs the DC BLM protests:
https://twitter.com/RedR1dngHood/status/1346908557560537091
https://twitter.com/RedR1dngHood/status/1346908557560537091
adsche(3)
I think the people there are looking for a grand narrative with the feeling of a struggle between two sides. My guess is that Washington is attempting to avoid creating that environment to minimize conflict. That's why we see the burglars strolling like tourists guided by red velvet. [1]
As a disclaimer, I'm not American, so take my feelings with a grain of salt.
[1] https://twitter.com/JenniferJJacobs/status/13469023580061040...
As a disclaimer, I'm not American, so take my feelings with a grain of salt.
[1] https://twitter.com/JenniferJJacobs/status/13469023580061040...
I’m American and that possibility has occurred to me too. The police are trying to manage the situation without inflaming it, and especially without creating some Tienenmann-lite incident of violence.
I think there's a bit of honesty to it as well. I bet the burglars need to see themselves as breaking into Mordor and challenging Sauron to save Middle-Earth. As much as Congress houses difficult things like partisan deadlock and lobbying, it's not a villain's lair in an action movie. I think it was smart of the capitol organizers to ensure Congress was secure, and then stay away from posturing like a James Bond villain.
The police and the fascists are on the same side.
I came to say this in a more ironic way, but this is clearer.
During the BLM protests the police wasn't late at showing up fully armed.
During the BLM protests the police wasn't late at showing up fully armed.
“The Police” is an over generalization. We shouldn’t ask the police to both intervene while also calling all of them fascists.
We can’t identify a problem and demand a solution?
There are police officers who mean well and also officers who abuse their power; and police forces in different places have different institutional cultures and leadership, some of which are odious and some of which are good. "The Police" is a very broad term
Look, it’s not like the bad apples theory hasn’t been debated to death. If you’re uncomfortable with the “good apples” being tarnished by the “bad apples”, you’ll have a better impact by working to change the pervasive culture of:
- those “bad apples” being almost universally exempt from meaningful accountability proportional to their power and actions
- those “good apples” being unwilling to lead those accountability efforts, or even to just distance themselves from the “bad apples” to set a better example
- the clear and consistent bias overall in favor of these far right/fascist actors, including numerous times being caught on camera actively coordinating and ample video evidence of such bias in plain view
If “the police” don’t want to be viewed as a homogeneous pro-fascist force, they need to not act like one.
- those “bad apples” being almost universally exempt from meaningful accountability proportional to their power and actions
- those “good apples” being unwilling to lead those accountability efforts, or even to just distance themselves from the “bad apples” to set a better example
- the clear and consistent bias overall in favor of these far right/fascist actors, including numerous times being caught on camera actively coordinating and ample video evidence of such bias in plain view
If “the police” don’t want to be viewed as a homogeneous pro-fascist force, they need to not act like one.
You contradict yourself when you identify a problem then ask that problem to kindly solve itself.
Yes we should, because both are apt.
This amounts to argument that if cops feelings are hurt, it is ok for them to let things just happen. I mean, we expect more from snowflake sjws.
What we probably shouldn't have done was to hire the people we hired to be police in the first place. That was the mistake from which all others followed. If the people you hire to police your laws will only police the laws they want to police, or even worse, will only police the laws against a certain demographic of people, then you don't have a police force. And acting like these people are police inevitably leads to scenes like the one we see today.
Some of those that work forces
Are the same that burn crosses
[deleted]
tharne(7)
There is nothing those protestors would like more than a violent response. Imagine the social media response. The leadership is scared of sparking a bigger fire
> Imagine the social media response
No, this is a key difference between the sides of this issue. The people in DC aren’t looking for a response on social media - they’re looking for a response in real life, with arms if necessary. I think they may well get it this time, too.
The Left doesn’t seem to realize the table stakes are different with this.
No, this is a key difference between the sides of this issue. The people in DC aren’t looking for a response on social media - they’re looking for a response in real life, with arms if necessary. I think they may well get it this time, too.
The Left doesn’t seem to realize the table stakes are different with this.
They aren't really though. There's nothing particularly special about DC. The same sentators and congress can meet anywhere to do their job, and just ignore these folks
What'll really spark a bigger fire is if the protesters are given time to do what they say they want, and recruit some congressmembers to declare Trump the election winner.
This is nonsense, it's not how it works, Congress cannot choose the president unless no candidate gets a majority of Electoral College votes. Trump unquestionably lacks a majority of state certified Electoral College votes. And Biden unquestionably has a majority of state certified Electoral College votes - and per the Electoral Counts Act those certifications made by the safe harbor date, which was December 8, cannot be disputed by Congress.
Everything else going on is a show. And it is working insofar as Trump's sore loser supporters have sent him more money after the election than before the election. They love the lies. They hate the truth. They lack the coping skill to deal with truth, so they sign up for the lies. They purchase lies as a product, that is what Trump sells. It's who he has always been and always will be.
Trump right now: we had an election, that was stolen from us, it was a landslide election, and everyone knows it, especially the other side...but you have to go home now, we have to have peace.
they took it away from me, from you, from our country
this was a fraudulent election...so many are treated with evil...go home in peace
Translation: We won, but you gotta go home. They stole from me, from you, from the country, but you gotta go home. They are evil, but you gotta go home.
He is unfit for office. He's ill. The proper thing to do is wrap up the counting of ascertained Electoral College votes, declare Biden the winner. And then the House should immediately impeach Trump. And then the Senators can choose to remove him from office and ban him from ever holding public office again. That is the proper way to end this.
Everything else going on is a show. And it is working insofar as Trump's sore loser supporters have sent him more money after the election than before the election. They love the lies. They hate the truth. They lack the coping skill to deal with truth, so they sign up for the lies. They purchase lies as a product, that is what Trump sells. It's who he has always been and always will be.
Trump right now: we had an election, that was stolen from us, it was a landslide election, and everyone knows it, especially the other side...but you have to go home now, we have to have peace.
they took it away from me, from you, from our country
this was a fraudulent election...so many are treated with evil...go home in peace
Translation: We won, but you gotta go home. They stole from me, from you, from the country, but you gotta go home. They are evil, but you gotta go home.
He is unfit for office. He's ill. The proper thing to do is wrap up the counting of ascertained Electoral College votes, declare Biden the winner. And then the House should immediately impeach Trump. And then the Senators can choose to remove him from office and ban him from ever holding public office again. That is the proper way to end this.
Storming the Capitol building isn't how it works either, but it happened! The whole point of a coup is to dictate new rules for how it works, by looking at things you cannot do and deciding to do them. Don't get me wrong, "they come back and finish the count" is the overwhelmingly likely outcome, but we can't ignore coup attempts just because they aren't likely to work.
The capitol building doesn't make decisions though. The building grants no legitimacy. Just because there's people on the capitol building, doesn't mean anyone will listen to them.
If congress wants to meet on zoom, they can
If congress wants to meet on zoom, they can
Trump has been attempting an autogolpe for weeks. That will be his legacy. That will be the legacy of those who have been supporting him since the election.
Whether they are delusional or they want an autocracy, I can't assess and it doesn't even matter. I'd consider both example of mental illness, but this is a country with a culture that persists in not taking mental illness seriously. Including the one manifested by the sitting president. The solution is to remove him from office without any delay beyond the certification of the Electoral College.
Whether they are delusional or they want an autocracy, I can't assess and it doesn't even matter. I'd consider both example of mental illness, but this is a country with a culture that persists in not taking mental illness seriously. Including the one manifested by the sitting president. The solution is to remove him from office without any delay beyond the certification of the Electoral College.
They lose if they do something as distasteful as blackmail congressmembers to take a vote. They would lose support from everybody
They are armed. You can't use tear gas against weapons but guns. Using guns will lead to deaths either way, so I think they are taking the correct stance.
You can still use tear gas.
If countries weren't afraid of other gasses being used in war, they'd use tear gas on the battlefield
If countries weren't afraid of other gasses being used in war, they'd use tear gas on the battlefield
Several people have claimed this, but none of the news sources mention it
I haven't found a picture of a protester carrying a gun, but there are certainly vandals with clubs and bulletproof vests inside the Capitol, and some of them have broken into offices:
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/01/06/us/washington-dc-pro...
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/01/06/us/washington-dc-pro...
CSPAN reporting at least one law enforcement officer transferred to the hospital with a gunshot wound.
That sucks. I hope they are okay
BLM took over an entire section of Seattle for weeks.
The cops pulled out before that happened, and it was quite peaceful there while that was going on. It's really not the same situation.
I lived a block away from the CHAZ/CHOP and while it was mostly peaceful during the day, it was angry, aggressive, and deadly at night. I took video of a mob of people brutalizing (pushing to the ground, pinning on the ground) a Christian street preacher in broad daylight because they didn't like his annoying speech. At night, for days at a time, there were gunshots and people getting shot. If you think it was "quite peaceful" there, then you're getting your information from a severely biased source. I lived there and spent more time there than probably any of your sources.
My source is me, I live 3 blocks from it. Things were for sure a lot quieter at night with CHAZ/CHOP going on than they were in the week prior to it.
Are you saying it was "quite peaceful" in absolute terms or relative to other extreme events? I took it to mean absolute terms, but I want to give you the benefit of the doubt. If you lived there as I did, I don't see how anyone could look at the CHOP and say it was "quite peaceful" in absolute terms (eg, relative to an average day).
Bit of both.
The week before the CHOP started was full the sounds of helicopters overhead, flashbang explosions, and "less lethal" rounds being fired. The week after CHOP started was quiet. Comparing the shift from yesterday to today in DC's Capitol Hill against the shift from June 7 to June 8 in Seattle's Capitol Hill, the CHOP was extraordinarily peaceful. That's mostly the comparison I was making by initially saying it was "quite peaceful": the day before and the day after in those two locations.
But even then, the CHOP compared to the same location today (for example) is honestly pretty similarly peaceful. It was certainly a relatively violent time for that street, but I didn't feel at all at risk walking through it. I also didn't have any problem living 3 blocks away from a place that many news agencies tried to construe as violent anarchy.
The week before the CHOP started was full the sounds of helicopters overhead, flashbang explosions, and "less lethal" rounds being fired. The week after CHOP started was quiet. Comparing the shift from yesterday to today in DC's Capitol Hill against the shift from June 7 to June 8 in Seattle's Capitol Hill, the CHOP was extraordinarily peaceful. That's mostly the comparison I was making by initially saying it was "quite peaceful": the day before and the day after in those two locations.
But even then, the CHOP compared to the same location today (for example) is honestly pretty similarly peaceful. It was certainly a relatively violent time for that street, but I didn't feel at all at risk walking through it. I also didn't have any problem living 3 blocks away from a place that many news agencies tried to construe as violent anarchy.
Seattle is a place where people can throw each other off of overpasses into traffic just fine.
CHOP wasn't significantly different
CHOP wasn't significantly different
Quite peaceful? There were four shootings in ten days and at least two people killed [1]. I personally went there and within a span of an hour or so that I was there I saw a woman screaming about how she had been raped and I saw a mob of people violently ejecting a street preacher.
1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Hill_Autonomous_Zone#S...
1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Hill_Autonomous_Zone#S...
In comparison to the violence that was going on before the cops pulled out of their precinct, it was definitely more peaceful. It was also many orders of magnitude more peaceful than the current situation at the Capitol.
There were somewhere between 1 and 10 thousand people living in the zone. If we assume it was 10 thousand, and there were 2 murders inside of 10 days, then that works out to a rate of 73 (2*36.5) murders per year per 10k people, or 730 murders per 100k. That's approximately 7 times the rate of the most murderous city in the world[1].
I don't know what the murder rate in the neighborhood was prior to the occupation, but I'm pretty confident it wasn't nearly that high.
1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_murder_rate
I don't know what the murder rate in the neighborhood was prior to the occupation, but I'm pretty confident it wasn't nearly that high.
1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_murder_rate
What? More people were murdered there than at the capitol.
It was peaceful. Very few people got murdered.
> and it was quite peaceful
and also quite illegal and a complete breakdown of rule of law
and also quite illegal and a complete breakdown of rule of law
I'm not defending what's going on here, but CHAZ/CHOP had a higher murder rate than Somalia because of unelected volunteer "private security". Not sure how you see that as peaceful.
Source, please. For both parts of that claim.
I'm sure that was hyperbole, CHAZ/CHOP has 2 deaths and 4 wounded in a 24 day period.
So the murder rate is 2/24=0.0833_
Somalia had a murder rate of 599 deaths in 2015. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intention...
599/365=1.641
That being said, at least 1 of the killings at the CHAZ/CHOP was by the self proclaimed security forces. As far as I know no one has ever been identified or held accountable. If the idea is that you do not need police/ want to hold them to greater accountability because they are violent and kill innocent people but your replacement does the same thing...then what is the point?
So the murder rate is 2/24=0.0833_
Somalia had a murder rate of 599 deaths in 2015. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intention...
599/365=1.641
That being said, at least 1 of the killings at the CHAZ/CHOP was by the self proclaimed security forces. As far as I know no one has ever been identified or held accountable. If the idea is that you do not need police/ want to hold them to greater accountability because they are violent and kill innocent people but your replacement does the same thing...then what is the point?
Murder rates are typically reported on a per capita basis, not per day rate.
Siri is reporting CHAZ had a population of 80(??) and Somolia a population of 15MM. The respective per capita rates would be 0.025 and ~3.99e-5
Siri is reporting CHAZ had a population of 80(??) and Somolia a population of 15MM. The respective per capita rates would be 0.025 and ~3.99e-5
I apologize, some how I misread the parent as saying that there were more murders per day....
I am not sure how I misread that.
I am not sure how I misread that.
No reason to apologize, just trying to add some context/clarity
Murder rate is a per capita statistic. Larger populations have more of all types of crime, almost by definition.
I know that, for some reason I had misread the parent as saying that more murders occurred per day. My brain may have translated rate as change over time....
At least one of them was also by a cop's buddy, who drove in, shot somebody then wandered over to the cops for a high five and to be arrested.
And during that time they surrounded a federal courthouse... where people were free to come and go and court remained in session...
I like the original better: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_General_Strike
It's being live streamed on Twitch by people inside too. They locked them inside.
So you think they will be cleared?
burnthrow(1)
Boy do I wish there was a place to discuss politics in a dispassionate way. I find these events fascinating from a historical and sociological point of view. It really is history in the making.
HN is pretty good at this when it comes to other topics, when when it turns political, everyone pulls out their partisan membership card.
HN is pretty good at this when it comes to other topics, when when it turns political, everyone pulls out their partisan membership card.
For those of us who have to live in a nation that used to be solidly small-d democratic and seems to be trending in a different direction, it can be hard to be dispassionate about these issues. If you want a forum in which to dryly discuss momentous events, you might be looking for one that contains no one affected by those events.
The curse of politics is that as soon as any place for discussing it gets a reputation as being trustworthy, it becomes a valuable target to take over, sabotage or smear.
I am American, but thanks for your sanctimonious dismissal.
Discussing political events in a rational manner will never be a bad thing.
Discussing political events in a rational manner will never be a bad thing.
I didn't say it was bad, I said it was difficult for many. My advice applies to anyone seeking dispassionate discourse on current events, no matter their background. It will be difficult to find such conversation among people affected by the events. That's all.
Fair enough. Sorry if my reply was too hostile.
HN has difficulty with issues that approach questions of identity or livelihood, including matters of privacy, surveillance, technical tools, policies at or concerning specific tech companies or sectors, regulation of the tech industry, and policies of or concerning tech hubs, notably Silicon Valley / Northern California, NYC, Seattle, Austen, and other regions. As well as spillover from other regional disputes, notably in recent years China, India, and Russia and environs.
I don't think it's possible to join politics with upvote ranking systems.
All Internet forums are either too small and cliquish for people to have different opinions, or large enough to have snack rise to the top over actual analysis.
Is there a general political discussion group in the Internet that's both unbiased and high quality? I cannot think of a single one.
All Internet forums are either too small and cliquish for people to have different opinions, or large enough to have snack rise to the top over actual analysis.
Is there a general political discussion group in the Internet that's both unbiased and high quality? I cannot think of a single one.
FWIW, I am aggressively anti-partisan-duckspeak. I even wrote about it on my blog.
I know it's just anecdotal, but I think it's valuable to say that the loudest aren't a fully representative sample.
I know it's just anecdotal, but I think it's valuable to say that the loudest aren't a fully representative sample.
I'm sad and disappointed at the response.
This further increases the divide and makes it harder for us to have any non-extremist (whether left or right) and nuanced discussions.
This further increases the divide and makes it harder for us to have any non-extremist (whether left or right) and nuanced discussions.
It’s time to impeach the president, he’s a threat to the republic. Some things ought not be tolerated by a polite society.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNQRGohdW9Y
Listening in to the stream it seems like a woman was shot in the neck once she went in/broke into the capitol building. Someone who was with her looked in and saw that. Again, this is as reported in the above stream - no visual or other verification provided.
Edit: modified 'someone who was with her outside the window' to 'someone who was with her'. He did an interview on camera and stated that they did enter the building. Based on what he said I would categorize it as a 'forced' entry with warnings not to proceed further when the event happened.
Listening in to the stream it seems like a woman was shot in the neck once she went in/broke into the capitol building. Someone who was with her looked in and saw that. Again, this is as reported in the above stream - no visual or other verification provided.
Edit: modified 'someone who was with her outside the window' to 'someone who was with her'. He did an interview on camera and stated that they did enter the building. Based on what he said I would categorize it as a 'forced' entry with warnings not to proceed further when the event happened.
Your video link is to a 5+ hour livestream. A time reference would be helpful.
A woman participating in the insurrection at the US Capitol has died following being shot.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic...
A woman participating in the insurrection at the US Capitol has died following being shot.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic...
Capital Police opened the security line, encouraged the "protesters" inside, and were even shown having selfies taken with them. What other conclusion can you reach than that this was supported if not organized by someone with authority over the security forces sworn to protect the Capital? If true, this is Sedition.
Its not true please don’t parrot nonsense. The cops were relatively gentle compared with the summer protests, but they didn’t just let people inside.
Here is a livestream of the initial run on the steps: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_dGyEhnhGdw&feature=youtu.be
Here is a livestream of the initial run on the steps: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_dGyEhnhGdw&feature=youtu.be
At what time point in the video do you see the protesters break through the police line? I scanned through the 1.5 hour video and didn't find it. It seems like the whole video was filmed from the same location.
I think I found it, I replied to the parent comment with the info.
The breach seems to happened around 01:03:25.
It's hard to tell but it looks like a door was either breached or opened to the far left. There is a loud thud happening at the same time but it's hard to tell if that's what caused it.
It's seems to be off the side of the barricades so it doesn't appear anyone was "let in".
It's hard to tell but it looks like a door was either breached or opened to the far left. There is a loud thud happening at the same time but it's hard to tell if that's what caused it.
It's seems to be off the side of the barricades so it doesn't appear anyone was "let in".
I can confirm this, I saw a video on twitter showing the guards opening up the barricades and letting people get in. But they most likely were acting on an order to do so.
This is so shameful.
A reminder how fragile democracy is
I dunno - the us has a president doing everything he can to stay in power and has been blocked at every turn... that would not end the same way in most places
It's not hard to see that if only a few things were different, or if he had even an ounce of competence, this could have played out very differently. Let's also not forget there are still 14 days left.
An ounce of competence and he would have been re-elected due to the rally effect of an ongoing disaster.
Exactly. I'm amazed how sturdy the US government is proving to be with such a large percentage of the people, including the most powerful man in the world, trying to wholeheartedly reject and overthrow it.
I don't know, so far it looks more of a show of resilience.
Smith and Wesson stock jumped up 20% so far
Dang, this isn't a joke [1].
[1] https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/SWBI/
[1] https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/SWBI/
A coup is a “forceful seizure of executive authority and office by a dissident/opposition faction within the country’s ruling or political elites that results in a substantial change in the executive leadership and the policies of the prior regime (although not necessarily in the nature of regime authority or mode of governance).”
Source: https://www.systemicpeace.org/inscr/CSPCoupsCodebook2015.pdf
Source: https://www.systemicpeace.org/inscr/CSPCoupsCodebook2015.pdf
[deleted]
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/13469288825958850...
"This claim of election fraud is disputed, and this Tweet can’t be replied to, Retweeted, or liked due to a risk of violence"
That's a new one. Twitter openly admits the content is dangerous, but they still don't want to ban him so they carved out a special quarantine mode instead.
"This claim of election fraud is disputed, and this Tweet can’t be replied to, Retweeted, or liked due to a risk of violence"
That's a new one. Twitter openly admits the content is dangerous, but they still don't want to ban him so they carved out a special quarantine mode instead.
Twitter and Facebook need to be held accountable. It appears that fomenting an insurrection is good for (their) business.
Not only that but the "call to go home" will be limited because it can't be retweeted or liked.
Gone now. Just says "This Tweet violated the Twitter Rules."
>Today, I'm ordering a citywide curfew for the District of Columbia from 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, January 6, until 6:00 a.m. on Thursday, January 7.
https://twitter.com/MayorBowser/status/1346902298044325893
https://twitter.com/MayorBowser/status/1346902298044325893
No citation yet but apparently MSNBC are reporting an IED has been found.
MQ-9 time at this point...
MQ-9 time at this point...
CNN has one near the RNC.
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/congress-electoral-co...
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/congress-electoral-co...
I'm frustrated and saddened, but not surprised. What can we do but watch and seethe and hope? What words, shouts, or ululations can be uttered to bring relief to ourselves or our nation? What conversation is left?
Do they need to vote inside the Capitol in order for the process to move ahead?
This is the stuff I've been warning about for years on here. It's gonna rapidly accelerate from here on out, in case anyone is clinging to the idea that this will be squared away by January 20th.
I’d love to be looking at Twitter’s infrastructure dashboard right now. Peaks may be lower than a crazy catch in the Super Bowl or something but this is an hours long developing story with a ton of media
Very related to HN and tech, Trump posted a video on Twitter urging protestors to go home, but in the same video he reiterated his belief that the election was stolen.
Twitter promptly marked the video as misinformation and disables likes, comments, and shares, basically preventing the message from getting out.
I'm not even sure what the right move for Twitter is there.
Twitter promptly marked the video as misinformation and disables likes, comments, and shares, basically preventing the message from getting out.
I'm not even sure what the right move for Twitter is there.
Can you imagine if it were BLM protestors pulling these stunts? A massacre would have ensued. Law enforcement tolerance for white mayhem is pretty damn high.
Rick Santorum currently the voice of reason on CNN, jesus
[deleted]
[deleted]
btw Trump just tweeted the following an hour ago:
> Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have > been done to protect our Country and our Constitution, > giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of > facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they > were asked to previously certify. USA demands the truth!
(source: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/13469004345402408...)
If this is not an acknowledgment of an ongoing coup...
> Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have > been done to protect our Country and our Constitution, > giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of > facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they > were asked to previously certify. USA demands the truth!
(source: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/13469004345402408...)
If this is not an acknowledgment of an ongoing coup...
The contest in the executive suite is ... strong.
Mike Pence:
Peaceful protest is the right of every American but this attack on our Capitol will not be tolerated and those involved will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
https://twitter.com/Mike_Pence/status/1346918222432374785
Mike Pence:
Peaceful protest is the right of every American but this attack on our Capitol will not be tolerated and those involved will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
https://twitter.com/Mike_Pence/status/1346918222432374785
Simple algorithms: Things that people vote appear higher on the feed. Things that people click on, are also shown to other people in the same group. You can target your message (ads) to a specific group.
It looks harmless, but our amplifying algorithms gave a voice and a platform that led to this event. They created huge echo chambers with different set of facts and realities for different groups.
If you look deeply, this is partly our fault.
I may get downvoted for this. HN also has this variant of voting algorithm, and in a way it is an echo chamber of “what we think is true”. Just look at all the extreme FB hate comments.
I don’t have good answers other than, we really really need to invest in fact checking technology that is open, introspectable and objective.
It is so easy to spread hate and half truths that look like real truths.
We humans are wired to get dopamine hits from surprising/extreme/unusual information. It excites us so we click. The algorithms amplify it. Done at the scale of billions of people, it changes the fabric of society.
While we as devs are merely making “integer count field in a database” and a “react view that shows items in an array sorted by counts” that ends up shifting what the viewers believe in.
We are what we read and share.
It looks harmless, but our amplifying algorithms gave a voice and a platform that led to this event. They created huge echo chambers with different set of facts and realities for different groups.
If you look deeply, this is partly our fault.
I may get downvoted for this. HN also has this variant of voting algorithm, and in a way it is an echo chamber of “what we think is true”. Just look at all the extreme FB hate comments.
I don’t have good answers other than, we really really need to invest in fact checking technology that is open, introspectable and objective.
It is so easy to spread hate and half truths that look like real truths.
We humans are wired to get dopamine hits from surprising/extreme/unusual information. It excites us so we click. The algorithms amplify it. Done at the scale of billions of people, it changes the fabric of society.
While we as devs are merely making “integer count field in a database” and a “react view that shows items in an array sorted by counts” that ends up shifting what the viewers believe in.
We are what we read and share.
CSPAN reporting "The National Association of Manufacturers just asked Mike Pence to 'seriously consider' invoking the 25th amendment", which would remove Trump from effective control as President.
Quoting a tweet by Sam Mintz
https://nitter.net/samjmintz/status/1346931121423077376#m
https://nitter.net/pic/media%2FErFCshI
Quoting a tweet by Sam Mintz
https://nitter.net/samjmintz/status/1346931121423077376#m
https://nitter.net/pic/media%2FErFCshI
Upstream source: https://www.nam.org/manufacturers-call-on-armed-thugs-to-cea...
> Vice President Pence, who was evacuated from the Capitol, should seriously consider working with the Cabinet to invoke the 25th Amendment to preserve democracy.
> Vice President Pence, who was evacuated from the Capitol, should seriously consider working with the Cabinet to invoke the 25th Amendment to preserve democracy.
It's just show. That's not going to happen. It's ridiculous to even consider removing him two weeks early. He just put out huge call for peace before Twitter removed his platform.
"huge call for peace", feh.
It's like making a pie with a segment of apple pie and 7 segments of shit, and saying "Look at this beautiful apple pie I made you".
Or, to be closer to reality, it's you seeing Trump's shit pie (with a bit of apple) and announcing "Look the great apple pie Donald Trump made us!"
It's like making a pie with a segment of apple pie and 7 segments of shit, and saying "Look at this beautiful apple pie I made you".
Or, to be closer to reality, it's you seeing Trump's shit pie (with a bit of apple) and announcing "Look the great apple pie Donald Trump made us!"
The DC Mayor's request for the National Guard to restore order has been denied by the DoD.
This is an outrage, and an embarrassment. The world is watching. They need to stop this, now.
As an American I am terribly sad today for America and Americans regardless of political affiliation. What an insane sight to behold. Trump loyalists sitting in Nancy Pelosi’s office, a woman being rushed out having been shot, representatives drawing up impeachment articles, what a clusterfuck. A sad, sad day to be an American and a sad day for democracy because a demagogue has usurped it for his own wills and whims.
[deleted]
The difference between the police responses to BLM protests in public parks last July and armed Trump supporters storming the capitol is shocking.
Millions marched for women's rights, millions marched for gay rights, millions marched for voters rights, millions marched for democracy.
Now this desperate man called for protest, and what did he get? Thousands.
It's a tough moment for our nation, but I am reassured. First the people, then the courts, then the states, now congress and the Vice President have all repudiated Trump's dictatorial aspirations.
Now this desperate man called for protest, and what did he get? Thousands.
It's a tough moment for our nation, but I am reassured. First the people, then the courts, then the states, now congress and the Vice President have all repudiated Trump's dictatorial aspirations.
Until there are actual consequences, people will just keep trying.
The woman shot has died now.
This is truly tragic. She was an innocent. She should not have died.
I spent 10 years in the US Navy and these rioters are a disgrace to my and every other veteran's service. I'm ashamed to be an American today in the face of these traitors.
Live steam from inside the Capitol Building:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNJKNpAOs5k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNJKNpAOs5k
Bye-bye, thread.
Today certainly will reverberate decently, going forward.
Today certainly will reverberate decently, going forward.
When does it stop being"protests" in the reporting?
When the protesters have darker skin.
mynameishere(1)
dunce2020(2)
Most of the reporting by media around events around the nation in response to police violence were called protests even as they devolved into violence and clear rioting so I am not sure where you get this position from
That's not true
I do not understand how people believe this. News clip after news clip shows a CNN or FOX or MSNBC anchor in front of buildings that are literally on fire and they're saying "This is a protest ... it's mostly peaceful."
It's like we're watching the same exact movie and yet we're seeing two totally different films.
It's like we're watching the same exact movie and yet we're seeing two totally different films.
Purely peaceful doesn't tend to make the news. There were many thousands of rallies overall, with millions of attendees. If a tiny part of those has even just a few dozen shitheads max, you both got truly "mostly peaceful" and enough unacceptably bad stuff to produce enough news reports to make people think the country is burning. Some media have attempted to quantify it later based on police reports, and from what I remember it mostly matches that model.
The "based on police reports" is also a false narrative
They are using a % of attendee's to come up with that, so if a "protest" was attended by 1,000 and only 10 people were arrested it was billed as "mostly peaceful" even though looting, fires, etc occurred.
It is a changing of the definition of what most reasonable people would consider a "peaceful protest"
They are using a % of attendee's to come up with that, so if a "protest" was attended by 1,000 and only 10 people were arrested it was billed as "mostly peaceful" even though looting, fires, etc occurred.
It is a changing of the definition of what most reasonable people would consider a "peaceful protest"
> They are using a % of attendee's to come up with that,
no, reporting that says "1% of rallies had X reported" is not using a percentage of attendees.
And if seen myself at protests (not in the US/at BLM, to be clear) how much damage a dozen shitheads out of a few thousand attendees sadly can cause, and I would still qualify those as mostly peaceful (as did the authorities). This is in no way an excuse for those rioting, but it is for, you know, the vast majority of peaceful attendants (who in an escalating situation quite often are forced to stay, even if they don't want to)
no, reporting that says "1% of rallies had X reported" is not using a percentage of attendees.
And if seen myself at protests (not in the US/at BLM, to be clear) how much damage a dozen shitheads out of a few thousand attendees sadly can cause, and I would still qualify those as mostly peaceful (as did the authorities). This is in no way an excuse for those rioting, but it is for, you know, the vast majority of peaceful attendants (who in an escalating situation quite often are forced to stay, even if they don't want to)
So your response hinges on a single news outlet calling it riots and that is to represent all of the media?
When windows start getting broken, buildings set on fire, etc. From what I can gather thus far, it seems like it's people being where they're not supposed to be and refusing to leave.
edit from downthread
And there we go, they're breaking in now. Time to clean house.
edit from downthread
And there we go, they're breaking in now. Time to clean house.
Windows were broken, that's how the inurectionists entered the capitol.
Is there a source on that not coming from some rando's or politician's Twitter account?
CNN: https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/congress-electoral-co...
Ctrl+F for windows.
Ctrl+F for windows.
There it is, then. Thanks!
Videos are easy to find
Tocqville observed that US elections are a time of extraordinary stress on the system that nonetheless eventually subsides. This last ditch effort is a little more than this.
Yes, the ones currently storming the capitol are, likely, deluded they are fighting the good fight, but their stand at this point is little more than symbolic at this point.
My beef, though not a surprised beef, is with the commander in chief, who sees it as a way to stay in the hearts and minds of the his base. In some ways, the guy is very smart. It just scary when he is playing with fire like that.
Yes, the ones currently storming the capitol are, likely, deluded they are fighting the good fight, but their stand at this point is little more than symbolic at this point.
My beef, though not a surprised beef, is with the commander in chief, who sees it as a way to stay in the hearts and minds of the his base. In some ways, the guy is very smart. It just scary when he is playing with fire like that.
I've heard this every single day since November 3.
Spend 12 years telling anyone against the political establishment they're all matter of -ists/-phobes and then tell them leading up to the election that they'll be gulag'd and yeah, of course this is gonna happen.
This is chickens coming home to roost, Democrats have been so busy egging on violent riots in the poor areas of town that they've created an atmosphere where those actually affected by heavy handed government actions are going to see this as the only way out.
This is chickens coming home to roost, Democrats have been so busy egging on violent riots in the poor areas of town that they've created an atmosphere where those actually affected by heavy handed government actions are going to see this as the only way out.
I’m curious if this is an opportunity for spies to storm in with mob and plant surveillance devices in the capital
Flagged? Why would this thread be flagged?
HN readers can upvote or flag, threads. Sufficiently noteworthy items can be manually overridden by moderators.
HN is a reflection of interests at play on new submissions and the front page. This isn't perfect, though it's often reasonably good.
HN is a reflection of interests at play on new submissions and the front page. This isn't perfect, though it's often reasonably good.
It's not anymore, dang updated the thread.
Engagement is driven by conflict. Amplifying of center voices produces more conflict and provides more revenue.
Where's the tear gas and rubber bullets? Where is the national guard? There was more police response for a fscking photo op!
Just heard on C-SPAN: "The Defense Department has just denied a request by DC officials to deploy the National Guard to the US Capitol."
Source: Washington Post reporter https://twitter.com/byaaroncdavis/status/1346908166030766080
Source: Washington Post reporter https://twitter.com/byaaroncdavis/status/1346908166030766080
Update: White House says National Guard now dispatched: https://twitter.com/PressSec/status/1346918582832168964
The Defense Department has just denied a request by DC officials to deploy the National Guard to the US Capitol.
EDIT: Source - https://twitter.com/byaaroncdavis/status/1346908166030766080
"BREAKING: A source tells me The Defense Department has just denied a request by DC officials to deploy the National Guard to the US Capitol." -Aaron C. Davis (Investigative Reporter for The Washington Post)
"BREAKING: A source tells me The Defense Department has just denied a request by DC officials to deploy the National Guard to the US Capitol." -Aaron C. Davis (Investigative Reporter for The Washington Post)
I wonder how many of the current group is armed compared to past incidents were rubber bullets were used. Is it possible that there is a concern that escalating force may result in an increase in violent response? Is it like a smaller version of MAD policy, one involving guns instead of nukes. Those who have the ability to ensure MAD get different treatment than those who don't have the ability to ensure MAD.
Last I heard, the DC mayor requested activation of the guard, but stipulated that they not be armed nor wearing armor.
Whew. I would think hard about putting my people in that position if I received that request.
What makes you think they didn't think hard about it? Your elected officials are under siege.
Then don't send the military in unarmed. You're not going to put my people out there to be punching bags (or skeet).
Moreover, where are AG Barr’s badgeless secret police?
Your sentiment is apt, but Barr is no longer the AG.
> Where's the tear gas and rubber bullets?
Tear gas was deployed and live fire (not rubber bullets) exchanged within the Capitol.
But, yeah, allowing them to breach the Capitol and open fire within the building is very different than we've seen with protests with a different ideological bent. But it's consistent with how right-wing white protestors have been treated elsewhere in the country recently by law enforcement.
Tear gas was deployed and live fire (not rubber bullets) exchanged within the Capitol.
But, yeah, allowing them to breach the Capitol and open fire within the building is very different than we've seen with protests with a different ideological bent. But it's consistent with how right-wing white protestors have been treated elsewhere in the country recently by law enforcement.
[deleted]
Well they did shoot and kill a woman, and they were totally pepper spraying people by the end.
But I agree, Capitol Police should have never let this even happen. They knew there was a big protest. They should have been 100% ready for this and they totally dropped the ball.
Good thing very few people even went in and there was little damage. Well except for that women I mentioned. Anyone even know her name yet? Wonder if there will be murals of her.
But I agree, Capitol Police should have never let this even happen. They knew there was a big protest. They should have been 100% ready for this and they totally dropped the ball.
Good thing very few people even went in and there was little damage. Well except for that women I mentioned. Anyone even know her name yet? Wonder if there will be murals of her.
awnird(3)
[deleted]
TPTB want a tragedy to happen to manufacture societal consent for giving up our right to self-defense.
DC's National Guard just activated. It took a few dozen minutes, but its a full 100% response with 1100 troops allegedly being deployed.
I think the optimists were hoping that these protesters would calm down if given the space. But at this point, its clear that they aren't calming down and need to be met with more force.
Hopefully things remain somewhat peaceful. I don't think anyone's actually been hurt yet: just lots of property damage right now.
I think the optimists were hoping that these protesters would calm down if given the space. But at this point, its clear that they aren't calming down and need to be met with more force.
Hopefully things remain somewhat peaceful. I don't think anyone's actually been hurt yet: just lots of property damage right now.
> DC's National Guard just activated. It took a few dozen minutes
The Guard was requested yesterday, in advance of the protests, to prevent this kind of thing.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/d-c-mayor-calls-nationa...
Took more than a few dozen minutes.
The Guard was requested yesterday, in advance of the protests, to prevent this kind of thing.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/d-c-mayor-calls-nationa...
Took more than a few dozen minutes.
Hmm, good point.
I've only really been following things when shit hit the fan today. It took multiple dozens of minutes after the Capital was breached before the National Guard was called in, which is still too long in my opinion.
I've only really been following things when shit hit the fan today. It took multiple dozens of minutes after the Capital was breached before the National Guard was called in, which is still too long in my opinion.
What I dont get is how polarized the states currently is. It's either black or white. Red or Blue. Dems or Republicans. I tend to lean a little to the left myself, but people need perspective.
Biden is inheriting a mess, but what I liked was in his initial speech when he said "I dont care if you voted for me or not, I'll be your president". That sparks some hope and I hope it goes to unify the country
..and then the left goes on about prosecuting anyone who helped Trump, about how Trump supporters need to be reeducated.
Biden doesn't get to say that. The democrats have been vicious, mean, nasty and deceitful. Big Tech and Big Media practically covered up the entire Hunter Biden situation claiming it wasn't true; and now it's clear he was under FBI investigation.
You don't get to shit on 50% of the country, tell them they're all racist Nazis for supporting Trump, and then tell them, "We should unify." No state has gotten their day in court. The federal judges are all cowards. People have nothing else. Had the 7th Circuit at least heard testimony before ruling or the Supreme Court given more than a three line bullshit statement on standing, people would at least believe somebody was listening.
No body is listening.
People are losing faith in the system.
I have lost faith in the system, and I have never been a democrat or a republican. I've always been a centrist.
Biden doesn't get to say that. The democrats have been vicious, mean, nasty and deceitful. Big Tech and Big Media practically covered up the entire Hunter Biden situation claiming it wasn't true; and now it's clear he was under FBI investigation.
You don't get to shit on 50% of the country, tell them they're all racist Nazis for supporting Trump, and then tell them, "We should unify." No state has gotten their day in court. The federal judges are all cowards. People have nothing else. Had the 7th Circuit at least heard testimony before ruling or the Supreme Court given more than a three line bullshit statement on standing, people would at least believe somebody was listening.
No body is listening.
People are losing faith in the system.
I have lost faith in the system, and I have never been a democrat or a republican. I've always been a centrist.
Yeah I get where you are coming from. The system is completely broken, no doubts there.
I still think Biden a better bet than Trump though
Coup-o-meter is right on the line between "preparing for a coup" and "attempted coup" https://isthisacoup.com/
"Specifically, we are looking for whether protestors are successful in continuing their disruption and what actions members of the GOP take in response to these protests. Momentum has not shifted, but violence can create opportunities, and the question at this point is how will officials and other actors respond to this threat. "
While I saw that the police is clearly on the side of the maga protesters (making selfis with them etc.) I don't have the impression these are enough people for a coup. And the few people who are there don't seem to motivated to do much more than chanting and standing around.
> I don't have the impression these are enough people for a coup.
Still, being saved by the ineptitude of the "protestors" is still a damning indictment of the country.
Still, being saved by the ineptitude of the "protestors" is still a damning indictment of the country.
I don't think you remotely understand what a coup even is.
That election .. that was a coup.
That election .. that was a coup.
How so?
How is a bunch of unarmed people a coup? Yeah, storming the Capitol is a little concerning, but nothing's going to happen. The people that run that side are sheltered urban liberals and don't have the slightest clue as to what it would take for a US coup.
These are fascist methods successfully used in the past for power grabs. I was going to explain in more detail but then I saw your HN handle...
[deleted]
Over the summer there were hundreds of thousands of people and they weren’t allowed close to any government buildings. Now there’s a few hundred and they just let them into the capital buildings with what seems like little resistance?
anybody know if there's any live streams from one of these idiots storming the capitol? apparently someone has been shot and in the chest inside the capitol
In order to infringe on our personal rights and further entrench their monopolies, the first thing the two parties need to do is divide the people.
Pence should invoke the 25th amendment and remove Trump from office. That would end this constitutional crisis.
(Some Democrats are calling for an impeachment, which wouldn’t help.)
(Some Democrats are calling for an impeachment, which wouldn’t help.)
> (Some Democrats are calling for an impeachment, which wouldn’t help.)
I think it would help tremendously. If nothing else, it's important for the history books.
I think it would help tremendously. If nothing else, it's important for the history books.
He can’t be allowed the possibility to run and hold public office again.
[deleted]
America will feel the detrimental effects of Trump for years to come. These people and their special brand of crazy aren’t going away, even if he does.
National Guard activated now.
Source? (Not saying you're wrong, just... can't trust very much that you hear right now.)
CNN. Not just DC's too.
Claiming fraud without any evidence at all just because you lost is ridiculous. This is clearly a huge attack on democracy by Trump and his supporters/sycophants.
Edit:
How are the rioters even able to breach the security and allowed/able to stay there? Feels like some very bad policing - are they overwhelmed or is it intentional?
Edit:
How are the rioters even able to breach the security and allowed/able to stay there? Feels like some very bad policing - are they overwhelmed or is it intentional?
Is there ANY credible evidence of fraud, anywhere? Or are people protesting solely because they trust Trump?
Conspiracy theory extremism slowly turning into domestic terrorism. It's not a matter of what is real or what isn't. It's a matter of bullying the rest of the population to accept their beliefs as the truth.
https://www.hstoday.us/subject-matter-areas/infrastructure-s...
https://www.hstoday.us/subject-matter-areas/infrastructure-s...
Without hyperbole, this is textbook fascism.
"Orange man bad" has not aged well. This has to be one of not many times in politics where someone has been worse than even his own opponents could dream.
History will not look kindly on people who turned a blind eye.
History will not look kindly on people who turned a blind eye.
Well, a number of Trump's opponents did think we'd be living in a fascist dictatorship inside of a year after he was elected. That didn't happen. This is very, very bad, worse than I expected, but plenty of people on Twitter expected the imminent end of the United States as a free society.
Not for lack of trying.
I don't deny that. He has been a terrible president, one of the worst we've seen and certainly the worst on domestic policy in my lifetime. His ambitions -- addled and confused though they are -- reflect the worst impulses of this country.
Fascist Trump can't even get anyone from attacking him publicly whatsoever. You really like to use that word, but are clueless and careless.
no, there is no credible evidence of fraud, this is a fascist brown shirt style coup
Saying there was absolutely zero fraud in this election is inaccurate, but saying the election was "stolen" is inaccurate as well. Every election has irregularities - most of it is people making honest mistakes on forms. As is typical, it is fairly minor in this election as well. Big picture - there are problems with electronic voting that have been researched into by many academics. I believe we must insist that the source code to all voting systems to be made public.
Every election has fraud, and this one was no different. It's just a matter of the scale of fraud. From all evidence thus-far, this election is not all that different than past elections when it comes to voter fraud. There was more chance for fraud (due to more mail-in voting), but no one has been able to prove it was large enough to impact any election result.
So yes, Trump has been riling up his base with words of stolen election, which has led to this moment.
So yes, Trump has been riling up his base with words of stolen election, which has led to this moment.
The fraud was the black voter suppression.
The only serious problems we can see from the 2020 election, aside from the normal voter suppression that has long been common in many states, was the deliberate hobbling of the USPS by a Trump appointee and donor that results in an untold number of ballots not being counted that would have been counted had the USPS been operating at it's normal efficiency.
Appeal to authority, what higher authority than the POTUS? For weeks people have been telling Trump and his enablers they were playing with fire. Well..
f430(2)
There is very suspect video evidence of hidden away votes being snuck in once the room was cleared and those votes pushed Biden on top after Trump was winning. There is also iffy statistical data on the numbers of votes.
Have there been any Benford’s Law studies? Post them!
https://hereistheevidence.com/ presents some evidences, up to reader to decide if credible/substantial or not
Have you found anything credible? All I can find with random clicks are lots of very long youtube videos that don't ever seem to get to the point and links to voting laws in particular states without any context.
It gives the impression of there being plenty of evidence, but non of the items I looked at actually upheld what they claim.
It gives the impression of there being plenty of evidence, but non of the items I looked at actually upheld what they claim.
Do we know who runs that site? It could be accidental but it looks like a very low information way to barrage one's opponents and avoid specific criticism
I can’t believe this didn’t even break into the top five on HN.
Can someone explain what I’m missing?
Can someone explain what I’m missing?
Who flagged it ?
[deleted]
Arrest Trump. Try for sedition. Goddamn, I'm scared.
You can't arrest POTUS for sedition, unless he allows it, and even then it would be highly dubious on actual veracity.
Your scared of the wrong thing and the wrong person.
You should be scared of the people who have lost faith in a court full of cowards and an election system that was flooded with mail in ballots from dead people.
You should be scared of the people who have lost faith in a court full of cowards and an election system that was flooded with mail in ballots from dead people.
Well, it's a good thing the moratorium on federal executions is gone if they can charge and convict Trump of treason.
[deleted]
It's the practical erosion of Free Speech. Liberal (small "l" liberal) democracy and liberal science thrives on members:
1. Being willing to admit they may be wrong
2. Having access to a diverse information diet
But the past two decades have shown erosion of not only legal Free Speech, but practical free speech:
* Whereas previously they were just ignored (or even rebutted), today employees, students, and professors are all punished administratively for saying something that contradicts the narrative of the predominant members, or that may be offensive to someone. "If the federal government won't do it, let's restrict free speech on the ground-level."
* It is difficult to broaden your information diet, even intentionally. The platforms of yore that provided a place for free debate are empty, with everyone having migrated to social media where they can form disjoint sets defined by their ideology. Ever try having a dialectic on Twitter with someone of an opposing ideology? Haha, good luck.
* Expanding on ^, folks that aren't actively seeking diversity of thought have no natural avenue of exposure to information that contradicts their ideology. Whatever information delivery mechanism they choose today is, by default, going to agree with them.
* All of the above results in: staunchly maintaining your correctness in the face of opposition is rewarded far more strongly than admitting the possibility of wrongness
* Online radicalization makes in-person dialogue even harder; there are fewer and fewer opportunities for two moderates to debate when the possible participants are further across the spectrum than ever
Although restricting offensive speech has the upfront benefit of not hurting our iddly-widdly-fweelings, this is the price we pay for abandoning free speech.
For further reading, I recommend Kindly Inquisitors: The New Attacks on Free Thought [0]
[0] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/703086.Kindly_Inquisitor...
1. Being willing to admit they may be wrong
2. Having access to a diverse information diet
But the past two decades have shown erosion of not only legal Free Speech, but practical free speech:
* Whereas previously they were just ignored (or even rebutted), today employees, students, and professors are all punished administratively for saying something that contradicts the narrative of the predominant members, or that may be offensive to someone. "If the federal government won't do it, let's restrict free speech on the ground-level."
* It is difficult to broaden your information diet, even intentionally. The platforms of yore that provided a place for free debate are empty, with everyone having migrated to social media where they can form disjoint sets defined by their ideology. Ever try having a dialectic on Twitter with someone of an opposing ideology? Haha, good luck.
* Expanding on ^, folks that aren't actively seeking diversity of thought have no natural avenue of exposure to information that contradicts their ideology. Whatever information delivery mechanism they choose today is, by default, going to agree with them.
* All of the above results in: staunchly maintaining your correctness in the face of opposition is rewarded far more strongly than admitting the possibility of wrongness
* Online radicalization makes in-person dialogue even harder; there are fewer and fewer opportunities for two moderates to debate when the possible participants are further across the spectrum than ever
Although restricting offensive speech has the upfront benefit of not hurting our iddly-widdly-fweelings, this is the price we pay for abandoning free speech.
For further reading, I recommend Kindly Inquisitors: The New Attacks on Free Thought [0]
[0] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/703086.Kindly_Inquisitor...
I see things almost completely opposite to you. Twenty years ago we had far less diverse access to information. You would get things from your local newspaper, or tv networks. Professionals would work and filter what we see. Today anyone can fire up a blog, twitter, youtube, and start talking about anything. People today thus have been getting exposed to all kinds of ideas, and being taken in by them: the earth is flat, the election was stolen, etc, and believing it.
I think a lot of HN readers who are fairly sophisticated forget that half of the world is not. Diverse information diets are not a good thing, because most people are not equipped to understand what is reasonable.
I think a lot of HN readers who are fairly sophisticated forget that half of the world is not. Diverse information diets are not a good thing, because most people are not equipped to understand what is reasonable.
"because most people are not equipped to understand what is reasonable"
I hear this all the time now. But let's be clear -- this is the talk of fascism.
Democracy is built on trusting the populace to self govern. Saying that the populace is too dumb or uninformed to be trusted to self govern is inherently anti-democratic.
I hear this all the time now. But let's be clear -- this is the talk of fascism.
Democracy is built on trusting the populace to self govern. Saying that the populace is too dumb or uninformed to be trusted to self govern is inherently anti-democratic.
Well I think the fascism comes with the conclusion, i.e. "because most people are not equipped to understand what is reasonable, therefore we must control them"
Whereas something like "because most people are not equipped to understand what is reasonable, therefore we must provide them with the tools to understand what is reasonable" isn't necessarily fascist.
Whereas something like "because most people are not equipped to understand what is reasonable, therefore we must provide them with the tools to understand what is reasonable" isn't necessarily fascist.
Fascism calls out the problem but has the wrong solutions. It's tied to race, nationalism, authoritarianism, and other tribal aspects that are easy for some to grab onto but really do not have any place being part of the solution.
If you talk to anyone defending the anti-democractic occupation of the nation's capital today, you'll see that their response is typically is pro-fascist in this regard.
Even this morning, they quoted Adolf Hitler at the capital:
https://twitter.com/always_margot/status/1346578062700400647
If you talk to anyone defending the anti-democractic occupation of the nation's capital today, you'll see that their response is typically is pro-fascist in this regard.
Even this morning, they quoted Adolf Hitler at the capital:
https://twitter.com/always_margot/status/1346578062700400647
Fascism does not see the problem, it is the problem.
The grandiose, arrogant, and blind social elites calling out the popular masses to be socially alienated.
Whose social alienation it would be?
Of course such masses will be of service to any any much significant opportunist group.
People will vote even for a devil himself if one promises to get rid them off such elites.
Just like that, 20 years ago, in a country far, far away, the destitute populace decided, in its sane mind, to vote into power not anybody, but an ex-officer from a mafia-like intelligence organisation people worked so hard to remove from power just 10 years prior.
The grandiose, arrogant, and blind social elites calling out the popular masses to be socially alienated.
Whose social alienation it would be?
Of course such masses will be of service to any any much significant opportunist group.
People will vote even for a devil himself if one promises to get rid them off such elites.
Just like that, 20 years ago, in a country far, far away, the destitute populace decided, in its sane mind, to vote into power not anybody, but an ex-officer from a mafia-like intelligence organisation people worked so hard to remove from power just 10 years prior.
When I say calls out the problem, I mean fascism speaks to the class rift, and tells them all the wrong ideas and solutions. We agree that this is creating even worse problems.
The wealth divide in the U.S. has been steadily increasing, and the solution for the working class (higher education) isn't working like it used to, even making it worse for young people. This has lead to an angry working class who feel justified in blaming their problems on other out-groups, whether that's BLM, democrats, China, Mexicans, tech companies, doctors, lgtbq, etc.
This is what fascism is feeding on in America, and it has to stop.
The wealth divide in the U.S. has been steadily increasing, and the solution for the working class (higher education) isn't working like it used to, even making it worse for young people. This has lead to an angry working class who feel justified in blaming their problems on other out-groups, whether that's BLM, democrats, China, Mexicans, tech companies, doctors, lgtbq, etc.
This is what fascism is feeding on in America, and it has to stop.
> When I say calls out the problem, I mean fascism speaks to the class rift, and tells them all the wrong ideas and solutions. We agree that this is creating even worse problems.
There, we are on the same page.
A good historical example I brought up few weeks ago somewhere on HN.
A shameful truth from NSDAP days Germans did not come to admit even to this day is why Kristallnacht has happened.
The prime majority of Germans were not antisemites in thirties, and not even in forties. The image of the schizophrenoid—paranoid antisemite was completely uncharacteristic for anybody, but for single digit percentage of fanatics not unlike the current rightist crowd in America.
So, if most Germans did not drink the NSDAP coolaid, why did Kristallnacht happen?
It happened not because of Jewish people being Jewish as such. It happened because of Jewish people being rich (or being deemed so,) and NSDAP effectively promising complete impunity for looting.
There, we are on the same page.
A good historical example I brought up few weeks ago somewhere on HN.
A shameful truth from NSDAP days Germans did not come to admit even to this day is why Kristallnacht has happened.
The prime majority of Germans were not antisemites in thirties, and not even in forties. The image of the schizophrenoid—paranoid antisemite was completely uncharacteristic for anybody, but for single digit percentage of fanatics not unlike the current rightist crowd in America.
So, if most Germans did not drink the NSDAP coolaid, why did Kristallnacht happen?
It happened not because of Jewish people being Jewish as such. It happened because of Jewish people being rich (or being deemed so,) and NSDAP effectively promising complete impunity for looting.
I really wonder about the accuracy of "Jewish people being rich". I seem to remember there was a massive Jewish proletariat that went straight to the camps. German Jewish population might have fared a little better economically (but that remains to be proved with numbers) but I believe most of Eastern Europe Jewish population was NOT rich. So I get your point but I am afraid things are little more complex. (Any sources about the topic welcome)
I think a more correct way to say it wouldn't be "because of Jewish people being rich", but "because of Jewish people being perceived as rich as a group".
I don't think anyone in their right mind would try arguing that most jewish people in Germany at the time were rich, because that was definitely not the case at all.
I don't think anyone in their right mind would try arguing that most jewish people in Germany at the time were rich, because that was definitely not the case at all.
Indeed, they weren't that reach at all, and they were on the forefront of the proletarian movement.
But now we have all the benefit of the hindsight, and we cannot go back to thirties, and tell that to masses going crazy from destitution, and poverty.
But now we have all the benefit of the hindsight, and we cannot go back to thirties, and tell that to masses going crazy from destitution, and poverty.
The vast majority of Jews in Germany back then were dirt poor though. The issue is while most Germans weren’t particularly anti-Semitic, they didn’t care enough about it to object.
To wrap your head around what's going on now across the Western world, read:
1. Revolutions of 1830: https://www.britannica.com/event/Revolutions-of-1830
2. The Spring of Nations: https://www.britannica.com/event/Revolutions-of-1848
USA now is basically France of early-mid-19th century.
My clumsy prognosis, USA will more or less repeat the route towards the French style liberal state, possibly, with few Napoleons along the way. And if it wouldn't, then it may well end up Weimarized.
1. Revolutions of 1830: https://www.britannica.com/event/Revolutions-of-1830
2. The Spring of Nations: https://www.britannica.com/event/Revolutions-of-1848
USA now is basically France of early-mid-19th century.
My clumsy prognosis, USA will more or less repeat the route towards the French style liberal state, possibly, with few Napoleons along the way. And if it wouldn't, then it may well end up Weimarized.
I had a read but don't understand the connection. Could you please elaborate?
Think of the "establishment" as the Ancien Régime.
Kings, and governments were replaced like worn gloves in 19th century, but the regime in general was always kind of stuck no matter what angry masses did.
Nobility, bourgeois, wealthy burghers, revolutionary hipsters kept changing, while poor, unwashed masses were kept being oppressed, and handing power to the next group of tricksters out of four above again, and again.
Changing the order of the operands does not change the resulting product.
Guillotines were only finally retired when the collective elite class was compelled to genuinely start improving the situation of downtrodden classes for the fear for their own lives, rather than some romantic altruism.
Kings, and governments were replaced like worn gloves in 19th century, but the regime in general was always kind of stuck no matter what angry masses did.
Nobility, bourgeois, wealthy burghers, revolutionary hipsters kept changing, while poor, unwashed masses were kept being oppressed, and handing power to the next group of tricksters out of four above again, and again.
Changing the order of the operands does not change the resulting product.
Guillotines were only finally retired when the collective elite class was compelled to genuinely start improving the situation of downtrodden classes for the fear for their own lives, rather than some romantic altruism.
> Fascism does not see the problem, it is the problem.
Nobody is even close to implementing a fascist system in America. This is the kind of thing people who don't actually know anything about Fascism say. Trump was not a Fascist or even close to it.
Stop falling into the tired rhetoric of the 20th century. New words are needed to name the problem.
The name for the system that you need to start using is "Totalitarian Liberalism". The leader is less important than the sum total bureaucratic control that slowly and "rationally" usurps freedom, flexibility, and leisure time from society for the benefit of the people who have the most influence over policy.
It is not a populist system that benefits the aristocracy and the working class by aligning corporate and state power in the national interest (fascism) nor a system that purports to benefit the working class by giving them the means of production (communism) - it is a system that works to benefit the existing rich by exploiting and undermining social divides, papering over them with rules and laws that marginalize the entire working class while setting it against itself.
Nobody is even close to implementing a fascist system in America. This is the kind of thing people who don't actually know anything about Fascism say. Trump was not a Fascist or even close to it.
Stop falling into the tired rhetoric of the 20th century. New words are needed to name the problem.
The name for the system that you need to start using is "Totalitarian Liberalism". The leader is less important than the sum total bureaucratic control that slowly and "rationally" usurps freedom, flexibility, and leisure time from society for the benefit of the people who have the most influence over policy.
It is not a populist system that benefits the aristocracy and the working class by aligning corporate and state power in the national interest (fascism) nor a system that purports to benefit the working class by giving them the means of production (communism) - it is a system that works to benefit the existing rich by exploiting and undermining social divides, papering over them with rules and laws that marginalize the entire working class while setting it against itself.
From:
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/fascism-1
* strident, often exclusionary nationalism - ("America First") check.
* fixation with national decline (real or perceived) and threats to the existence of the national community - ("MAGA") check.
* embrace of paramilitarism - ("stand back and stand by") check.
* led by an authoritarian leader who claims to embody the national will. - check.
* protecting or elevating the rights of the national community above the rights of those seen as alien - ("build a wall", "I don't care, do u?") check.
* removing obstacles to national unity and suppressing those seen as challenging it - (myth of "stolen" votes, "Deep State" narrative) check.
* expanding the size and influence of the national state - (To be fair, this has been the military industrial complex for quite a long time. Nothing unique here) normalized/not unique here
* often, also seeking to expand territory through armed conflict - (Also, already a characteristic of the U.S. forever war to protect its interests globally) normalized/not unique here
Merriam-Webster: Definition of fascism
1. often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control early instances of army fascism and brutality — J. W. Aldridge
Don't know where you're getting your definition from.
* strident, often exclusionary nationalism - ("America First") check.
* fixation with national decline (real or perceived) and threats to the existence of the national community - ("MAGA") check.
* embrace of paramilitarism - ("stand back and stand by") check.
* led by an authoritarian leader who claims to embody the national will. - check.
* protecting or elevating the rights of the national community above the rights of those seen as alien - ("build a wall", "I don't care, do u?") check.
* removing obstacles to national unity and suppressing those seen as challenging it - (myth of "stolen" votes, "Deep State" narrative) check.
* expanding the size and influence of the national state - (To be fair, this has been the military industrial complex for quite a long time. Nothing unique here) normalized/not unique here
* often, also seeking to expand territory through armed conflict - (Also, already a characteristic of the U.S. forever war to protect its interests globally) normalized/not unique here
Merriam-Webster: Definition of fascism
1. often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control early instances of army fascism and brutality — J. W. Aldridge
Don't know where you're getting your definition from.
Using your example, I could make a pretty compelling case substituting in JFK. I think there has to be some form of evaluation not so easily bent to what one wants to see.
Do it
Wrong, I am strongly against using terms like facist or nazi for the purpose of insulting or otherizing someone you do not like. However he clearly ticks the majority of elements of a Facist leader. You do not know what facism is.
> It is not a populist system that benefits the aristocracy and the working class by aligning corporate and state power in the national interest (fascism)
But that's exactly Trumps presidency? Or at least what he was attempting.
What you're missing is that fascism doesn't align ALL of the groups, just a fraction of each, and blames failures on the ones that aren't in that alignment
But that's exactly Trumps presidency? Or at least what he was attempting.
What you're missing is that fascism doesn't align ALL of the groups, just a fraction of each, and blames failures on the ones that aren't in that alignment
Why do you say Trump was not close to fascism? I thought the combination of populism + nationalism + law/order + charismatic leadership + monied interests was close to fascist.
That's a really amazing way of putting it. Thank you.
From the tweet you quoted:
> And for those who want to nitpick what she said, let me just stop you right there—Hitler was right on literally nothing.
This is most likely fake news. Hitler was one of the first world leaders against smoking. So he was right on at least one thing.
> And for those who want to nitpick what she said, let me just stop you right there—Hitler was right on literally nothing.
This is most likely fake news. Hitler was one of the first world leaders against smoking. So he was right on at least one thing.
See also:
* Rockets * Propaganda films
The US still uses his advancements today
* Rockets * Propaganda films
The US still uses his advancements today
What she quoted, "Who ever has the youth has the future" .. well, that's right.
People are seriously afraid of things like Critical Race Theory and Gender Ideology being taught in our schools. It's indoctrinating kids and parent's don't have a choice about it being taught to their kids.
She is literally quoting Hitler to show what the LEFT is doing in schools and how it's WRONG. This reaction is taken entirely out of context.
People are seriously afraid of things like Critical Race Theory and Gender Ideology being taught in our schools. It's indoctrinating kids and parent's don't have a choice about it being taught to their kids.
She is literally quoting Hitler to show what the LEFT is doing in schools and how it's WRONG. This reaction is taken entirely out of context.
Those two are the exact same thing with merely different wording, since "we" are defining what is "reasonable", "we" are exerting control.
We are exerting control, but not complete control, and it's certainly not fascism.
Ideally, yes, everyone could understand every concept from the ground up and be able to engage in reasonable discourse about anything.
At this point, the complexity of the world precludes the majority of people from doing that, which is why we have specialization.
Practically speaking, people rely on authoritative sources to gain information about something so they can form opinions and make decisions. Those authorities do define what's reasonable based on different attributes, and in doing so exert control, but that doesn't make what they're doing fascist. It's done because the amount of complexity present in the world requires it.
Ideally, yes, everyone could understand every concept from the ground up and be able to engage in reasonable discourse about anything.
At this point, the complexity of the world precludes the majority of people from doing that, which is why we have specialization.
Practically speaking, people rely on authoritative sources to gain information about something so they can form opinions and make decisions. Those authorities do define what's reasonable based on different attributes, and in doing so exert control, but that doesn't make what they're doing fascist. It's done because the amount of complexity present in the world requires it.
“provide them with the tools to understand what is reasonable” ≠ “defining what is "reasonable"”.
You can help people reach reasoned conclusions without telling them what conclusions to reach.
You can help people reach reasoned conclusions without telling them what conclusions to reach.
Are not you then suggesting that the conclusions they should reach to be reasonable? There is nothing that says democracy has to produce a reasonable system, and most people could point to an area where it's not, at least subjectively.
People making suggestions to each other is a fundamental part of democracy. Of course it is not guaranteed to produce reasonable results, but I think we should help it along in that direction.
> You can help people reach reasoned conclusions without telling them what conclusions to reach.
In theory, &/or to some degree.
It's also worth noting that "reasoned conclusions" are not necessarily what is True. Rather than desiring that humanity strives for Rationality, wouldn't it make more sense to aim higher? To instead desire that humanity pursues Truth? This way, we can improve all people: the members of our outgroups and our ingroups.
In theory, &/or to some degree.
It's also worth noting that "reasoned conclusions" are not necessarily what is True. Rather than desiring that humanity strives for Rationality, wouldn't it make more sense to aim higher? To instead desire that humanity pursues Truth? This way, we can improve all people: the members of our outgroups and our ingroups.
Millennia of philosophers have searched for Truth, and as far as I can tell we are no closer to definitively finding it. But it seems to me that the best way to find the truth (with a small T) is by rationality; the alternative is irrationality which seems unlikely to be effective. My hope is that, by collaborating using the tools of reason combined with our own personal Truths, humanity could do our best by everyone involved. I don’t know for certain that it will work, but it seems like the best way we’ve got.
> and as far as I can tell we are no closer to definitively finding it
Perhaps it has been found but not distributed, or accepted. If we found it, would we even know? Would we be willing to acknowledge it, and practice it?
> But it seems to me that the best way to find the truth (with a small T) is by rationality; the alternative is irrationality which seems unlikely to be effective.
This seems like a bit of a false dichotomy to me.
Reality is rarely exactly as it seems.
> My hope is that, by collaborating using the tools of reason combined with our own personal Truths, humanity could do our best by everyone involved.
Perhaps, assuming (at least) we have no major flaws in our premises, or our systems (democracy theatre). I do share your hope though.
> I don’t know for certain that it will work, but it seems like the best way we’ve got.
It may be the best we've got now, but have we put any serious effort into finding alternatives? The horse and buggy was the best we had until someone invented the car; NASA was the best we had until Elon Musk started SpaceX, and so forth and so on.
As we sow, so shall we reap.
Perhaps it has been found but not distributed, or accepted. If we found it, would we even know? Would we be willing to acknowledge it, and practice it?
> But it seems to me that the best way to find the truth (with a small T) is by rationality; the alternative is irrationality which seems unlikely to be effective.
This seems like a bit of a false dichotomy to me.
Reality is rarely exactly as it seems.
> My hope is that, by collaborating using the tools of reason combined with our own personal Truths, humanity could do our best by everyone involved.
Perhaps, assuming (at least) we have no major flaws in our premises, or our systems (democracy theatre). I do share your hope though.
> I don’t know for certain that it will work, but it seems like the best way we’ve got.
It may be the best we've got now, but have we put any serious effort into finding alternatives? The horse and buggy was the best we had until someone invented the car; NASA was the best we had until Elon Musk started SpaceX, and so forth and so on.
As we sow, so shall we reap.
I’m struggling to understand your point. If we do find Truth, or a better way, how should we best verify we have found it—and convince others of that—and apply it—if not by careful application of reason? If there are flaws in our premises and systems, by what alternate means do you propose we find and determine how to correct them?
Some things that people feel strongly about may not "resolve" according to reason. That you've only ever been inside your own mind (with it's processor, and its model, which is derived from its "lived experiences") might have had some influence on how you believe that other people think. But if you look at what's going on around you, does this seem likely? The question then is: it is it that these people just(!) "aren't reasonable", or might there be something else going on? I don't doubt it's partially true, but what is really going on in other people's heads is unknown to you and me.
> by what alternate means do you propose we find and determine how to correct them
A reasonable thing to do would be to perhaps ask people what their problem is. Funny thing is though, it seems like this reasonable idea hasn't occurred to any "reasonable" people, as far as I know anyways.
A more ambitious approach would be to perform a comprehensive and careful examination of the other styles of thinking & belief systems that are out there. When you read threads like this one, do you get a strong sense that a large percentage of the people in here have actually done that? I don't, perhaps because I've actually done just that, at least do a large degree. I know that 75%+ of the people in here are running largely on heuristics, likely combined with some first hand experience (perhaps with a side order of confirmation bias), and likely plenty of consumption of "proper, trustworthy journalism", written by people who are also running on heuristics.
Very few people have a very good knowledge of how the mind works, and almost no one seems to have excellent knowledge, including things like edge case behaviors. Another thing you may notice in culture war threads like this one is the lack of curiosity/uncertainty/humility - but you may not notice it unless you are consciously looking for it. That's another thing about the mind: it's not so great at seeing things that aren't there, or knowing things that it doesn't know. I believe that this is a partial cause for the perceptions of omniscience that are always on full display in threads like this. Ironically, omniscience is a fairly reasonable perception for a neural network like the subconscious mind - after all, how do you reason about data that is not in your model?
Such things can be learned, but why would one go to the effort of learning something new if you already know everything worth knowing? That would be unreasonable.
As for the general utility of using reason as an approach to our problems - HN is surely an above average intelligence forum. The conversation that's going on in this thread (and the many others like it that occur on a regular basis), is this what "reason" looks like? And if people on HN can't even manage it, how reasonable is it to expect joe sixpack to pull it off?
And so I shall take my downvotes, and we will repeat this same process tomorrow, and the next day, and the next day, and eventually we will all reach our expiration date and our children can continue this process, and then pass it down to their offspring - The eternal circle of life. Well, eternal, provided another nation who doesn't suffer from this cultural affliction doesn't rise to power and ruin our party that is. That would be a real bummer.
PS: Sorry for being a dick. It's in my nature.
> by what alternate means do you propose we find and determine how to correct them
A reasonable thing to do would be to perhaps ask people what their problem is. Funny thing is though, it seems like this reasonable idea hasn't occurred to any "reasonable" people, as far as I know anyways.
A more ambitious approach would be to perform a comprehensive and careful examination of the other styles of thinking & belief systems that are out there. When you read threads like this one, do you get a strong sense that a large percentage of the people in here have actually done that? I don't, perhaps because I've actually done just that, at least do a large degree. I know that 75%+ of the people in here are running largely on heuristics, likely combined with some first hand experience (perhaps with a side order of confirmation bias), and likely plenty of consumption of "proper, trustworthy journalism", written by people who are also running on heuristics.
Very few people have a very good knowledge of how the mind works, and almost no one seems to have excellent knowledge, including things like edge case behaviors. Another thing you may notice in culture war threads like this one is the lack of curiosity/uncertainty/humility - but you may not notice it unless you are consciously looking for it. That's another thing about the mind: it's not so great at seeing things that aren't there, or knowing things that it doesn't know. I believe that this is a partial cause for the perceptions of omniscience that are always on full display in threads like this. Ironically, omniscience is a fairly reasonable perception for a neural network like the subconscious mind - after all, how do you reason about data that is not in your model?
Such things can be learned, but why would one go to the effort of learning something new if you already know everything worth knowing? That would be unreasonable.
As for the general utility of using reason as an approach to our problems - HN is surely an above average intelligence forum. The conversation that's going on in this thread (and the many others like it that occur on a regular basis), is this what "reason" looks like? And if people on HN can't even manage it, how reasonable is it to expect joe sixpack to pull it off?
And so I shall take my downvotes, and we will repeat this same process tomorrow, and the next day, and the next day, and eventually we will all reach our expiration date and our children can continue this process, and then pass it down to their offspring - The eternal circle of life. Well, eternal, provided another nation who doesn't suffer from this cultural affliction doesn't rise to power and ruin our party that is. That would be a real bummer.
PS: Sorry for being a dick. It's in my nature.
On the topic of things going on in other people’s heads, you seem to be arguing against a point I wasn’t trying to make at all. When I hear “the tools to understand what is reasonable” and write of “finding the truth” and “collaborating using the tools of reason” I think of things like statistics courses and advancing the theory of systemantics. Reading your reply, it’s hard for me to tell exactly what you’ve heard, but it sounds like you may have instead understood this as my desiring to impose my beliefs of truth on others, which is not what I meant at all.
It sounds like we’re actually in violent agreement; I also think that we should be seeking each others’ perspectives. We’ve approached this conversation from different angles; the tack I’ve taken is to assume that is a given and consider ways to encourage it to happen productively. Of course people are not “just(!) unreasonable”; but even if the things they feel strongly about cannot themselves be reconciled by reason, it is still a useful tool to effect action based on those beliefs. I (and, it seems, you) seek tools to help reconcile differing beliefs and ensure that shared goals—whatever they may be—might have the most effective plan of action.
With that said, a few comments on particulars:
> When you read threads like this one, do you get a strong sense that a large percentage of the people in here have actually ... perform a comprehensive and careful examination of the other styles of thinking & belief systems that are out there?
Not really, no, but I also didn’t get the impression that you had done that, either, so there you go. I haven’t, either, very much; it’s an incredibly large field, so I rely heavily on encountering them by happenstance (though I do try to increase the chances of that occurring), which brings me to my next point:
> 75%+ of the people in here are running largely on heuristics
Running on heuristics is all we can do; the world is too large and complex for anything else. The best we can do is tune them carefully and be prepared to change them (using, of course, more heuristics; as you noted in your first paragraph this is heavily influenced by existing priors).
> Another thing you may notice in culture war threads like this one is the lack of curiosity/uncertainty/humility...
Any online thread is likely to be skewed towards a lack of visible curiosity; that is frequently satisfied by merely reading, whereas the most prolific way to produce content is by debate.
> if people on HN can't even manage it, how reasonable [! —ed.] is it to expect joe sixpack to pull it off?
Under present circumstances, perhaps not. But I’d still like to keep nudging things in that direction, and maybe someday we’ll get there.
It sounds like we’re actually in violent agreement; I also think that we should be seeking each others’ perspectives. We’ve approached this conversation from different angles; the tack I’ve taken is to assume that is a given and consider ways to encourage it to happen productively. Of course people are not “just(!) unreasonable”; but even if the things they feel strongly about cannot themselves be reconciled by reason, it is still a useful tool to effect action based on those beliefs. I (and, it seems, you) seek tools to help reconcile differing beliefs and ensure that shared goals—whatever they may be—might have the most effective plan of action.
With that said, a few comments on particulars:
> When you read threads like this one, do you get a strong sense that a large percentage of the people in here have actually ... perform a comprehensive and careful examination of the other styles of thinking & belief systems that are out there?
Not really, no, but I also didn’t get the impression that you had done that, either, so there you go. I haven’t, either, very much; it’s an incredibly large field, so I rely heavily on encountering them by happenstance (though I do try to increase the chances of that occurring), which brings me to my next point:
> 75%+ of the people in here are running largely on heuristics
Running on heuristics is all we can do; the world is too large and complex for anything else. The best we can do is tune them carefully and be prepared to change them (using, of course, more heuristics; as you noted in your first paragraph this is heavily influenced by existing priors).
> Another thing you may notice in culture war threads like this one is the lack of curiosity/uncertainty/humility...
Any online thread is likely to be skewed towards a lack of visible curiosity; that is frequently satisfied by merely reading, whereas the most prolific way to produce content is by debate.
> if people on HN can't even manage it, how reasonable [! —ed.] is it to expect joe sixpack to pull it off?
Under present circumstances, perhaps not. But I’d still like to keep nudging things in that direction, and maybe someday we’ll get there.
No - they are not.
'The News' - which is mostly credible, is mostly not a form of state propaganda.
'The News' in the US, is a 'reasonable' form of credible information.
'Facebook' is generally not a good source of truthful information. It's a very open and free place to communicate, which is wonderful, but it's just not a good truthiness signal.
Enough with this idea that anything but 'everyone on a soapbox' is somehow fascist. Every community has sources that are more legitimately authoritative than others.
'The News' - which is mostly credible, is mostly not a form of state propaganda.
'The News' in the US, is a 'reasonable' form of credible information.
'Facebook' is generally not a good source of truthful information. It's a very open and free place to communicate, which is wonderful, but it's just not a good truthiness signal.
Enough with this idea that anything but 'everyone on a soapbox' is somehow fascist. Every community has sources that are more legitimately authoritative than others.
When you have a revolving door from the intelligence agencies into the news commentariat, along with speech writers/communications staff for politicians, I think that it's safe to eye "The News" as being at best an unwitting tool of state propaganda, if not an open-eyed broker/distributor of it. I could maybe cut them some slack for eagerly and uncritically repeating the feeds from "unnamed intelligence sources", but when you're paying the nominally "retired" members of the community to help craft the narrative, it's hard to view them as "mostly credible".
It is completely false to suggest that 'political speech writers' and some influence of 'narrative' by state bureaucracies entirely discredits the free press.
'The problem with the press' are their own internal narratives and biases, not any external influence.
The press are generally free to report on what they see, and they do that. It's their opinion that gets in the way.
And ironically, if there are bits they're afraid to report it's definitely not political, it's corporate, for fear of losing advertising revenue.
'The problem with the press' are their own internal narratives and biases, not any external influence.
The press are generally free to report on what they see, and they do that. It's their opinion that gets in the way.
And ironically, if there are bits they're afraid to report it's definitely not political, it's corporate, for fear of losing advertising revenue.
It reeks of fascist or authoritarian thought - distrust of the people and then "helping them see the light" is a strategy that goes off the rails almost certainly.
> “we must provide them with the tools to understand what is reasonable"
There is just the same as “control them” and in practice is how fascism works. The DDR didn’t rely primarily on stasi breaking kneecaps to enforce order.
There is just the same as “control them” and in practice is how fascism works. The DDR didn’t rely primarily on stasi breaking kneecaps to enforce order.
The latter is just a euphemism for the former, as anyone who has read 1984 can tell you.
Have you seen the crap that people believe and the shitty sources that they're accepting the information from? The Facts AKA barely plausible bullshit is being served to anyone who wants to believe in an alternate yet more interesting reality fitting their own beliefs.
Social media has given everyone a soap box, a megaphone and a repeater and the ability to piggyback on other people's shouting directly into people's ears and eyes. Do you think this is a good thing? No one is vetting anyone seriously, no one is being consistently judged on their honesty, accuracy, track record or motives.
It's not entirely about being dumb, more and more it's turning out to be about how much time people are able to commit to understanding what they're reading. This is why people are known as experts in the first place. Do you really think everyone is capable enough to handle the highly nuanced planning and decision making necessary for governing millions of people on the balance of thousands of existing laws and regulations?
Sometimes you can't boil information down into something that everyone can understand in a short enough amount of time which would be what is necessary for each person to play a role in democracy. Just like we pay someone to fix our plumbing we should be paying our politicians to figure this stuff out for us.
We don't have the time or attention span. It's impossible.
Social media has given everyone a soap box, a megaphone and a repeater and the ability to piggyback on other people's shouting directly into people's ears and eyes. Do you think this is a good thing? No one is vetting anyone seriously, no one is being consistently judged on their honesty, accuracy, track record or motives.
It's not entirely about being dumb, more and more it's turning out to be about how much time people are able to commit to understanding what they're reading. This is why people are known as experts in the first place. Do you really think everyone is capable enough to handle the highly nuanced planning and decision making necessary for governing millions of people on the balance of thousands of existing laws and regulations?
Sometimes you can't boil information down into something that everyone can understand in a short enough amount of time which would be what is necessary for each person to play a role in democracy. Just like we pay someone to fix our plumbing we should be paying our politicians to figure this stuff out for us.
We don't have the time or attention span. It's impossible.
> I hear this all the time now. But let's be clear -- this is the talk of fascism.
No it's not. This is declaring a problem -- which I think is a very real problem -- but not suggesting a solution. I don't believe anyone is suggesting fascism is the solution to this problem -- except for you.
But now that you've provided this unreasonable response, it's now much more difficult to discuss it. You've unintentionally provided an example of the very thing we're talking about.
No it's not. This is declaring a problem -- which I think is a very real problem -- but not suggesting a solution. I don't believe anyone is suggesting fascism is the solution to this problem -- except for you.
But now that you've provided this unreasonable response, it's now much more difficult to discuss it. You've unintentionally provided an example of the very thing we're talking about.
He is suggesting a solution - self governance. Trust the people to make their own decisions, because there is no better alternative. What else can we do, have some committee that decides what the public is allowed to hear? That is fascism.
Nobody is suggesting getting rid of democracy -- this is red herring. This is a bad faith argument about bad faith arguments. It's no wonder people can't decide which direction is up.
In a conversation that is supposedly about how people are being mislead by media we're 2 seconds away of Godwin's law again. It's exhausting.
In a conversation that is supposedly about how people are being mislead by media we're 2 seconds away of Godwin's law again. It's exhausting.
Seriousness aside, Godwin himself agreed that the law no longer applies after Charleston.
Nothing in the world is a binary choice - reducing the potential solutions into either or does a disservice to attempts to find reasonable resolutions. In fact I'd say nearly nobody on earth wants to trust people to make all of their own decisions because those decisions impact other people. The choice to murder someone is not a choice we'd like to allow people to freely make without consequence.
We can destroy anonymity on the internet and punish people who spread malicious provable lies, calls for violence, or hate especially people who do so in an organized fashion.
An idiot who shares something untrue that he ought to have known was false is materially different from someone who fabricates something and ultimately directly and by proxy misinforms 10 million people.
The choice isn't between tyranny or absolute freedom. It's about our actions shaping the bones of society. The current framework isn't mere ground truth we must accept we can reshape it if we desire and perhaps we should.
An idiot who shares something untrue that he ought to have known was false is materially different from someone who fabricates something and ultimately directly and by proxy misinforms 10 million people.
The choice isn't between tyranny or absolute freedom. It's about our actions shaping the bones of society. The current framework isn't mere ground truth we must accept we can reshape it if we desire and perhaps we should.
We should not. Free speech is the only thing that keeps this society glued together, and the actions against free speech taken by the technological elite and it‘s companies over the last several years have primed the landscape for conflict.
You can’t just squeeze the screw tighter on this.
The idea of “I know better than you, therefore I control what you see and say or else” is the absolute height of arrogance.
You can’t just squeeze the screw tighter on this.
The idea of “I know better than you, therefore I control what you see and say or else” is the absolute height of arrogance.
> We can destroy anonymity on the internet and punish people who spread malicious provable lies
First of all, plenty of the people currently spreading lies on the internet are doing so under their own names and have built some celebrity and a career out of it, so I don't know why you think that anonymity contributes to the problem in any real way.
But more importantly, how exactly do you propose to "punish people" who spread lies? With what form of punishment? Is this a formal system of punishment, or some informal system?
If formal: Under what jurisdiction? How does your proposed system determine the truth, and if it can determine the truth how does it determine which lies are malicious enough to be deserving of punishment?
If informal: How does it differ from what we have today, in the form of people arguing with each other and occasionally trying to get each other banned from social media or otherwise made unpublishable or unemployable?
First of all, plenty of the people currently spreading lies on the internet are doing so under their own names and have built some celebrity and a career out of it, so I don't know why you think that anonymity contributes to the problem in any real way.
But more importantly, how exactly do you propose to "punish people" who spread lies? With what form of punishment? Is this a formal system of punishment, or some informal system?
If formal: Under what jurisdiction? How does your proposed system determine the truth, and if it can determine the truth how does it determine which lies are malicious enough to be deserving of punishment?
If informal: How does it differ from what we have today, in the form of people arguing with each other and occasionally trying to get each other banned from social media or otherwise made unpublishable or unemployable?
[deleted]
This seems like an argument from 'my opponent believes something that could possibly be used to justify something bad'. People are not equipped to understand what is reasonable. No one is. 90% of being reasonable is just following with the herd because the world is really really hard to understand. That is an argument against democracy, and also every other form of government involving people at any level. Such is life, at least until some kind of weird technical solution pops up.
To reinforce this point we agree[1] that some experiences can be so extreme as to cause long term psychological damage. PTSD is a really extreme example of not being able to cope with what reality was (due to generally experiencing an extremely bad portion of reality) - so I wanted to reinforce that at the extremes information can be damaging and different people do have different tolerances of how they cope with such information.
I'm not saying that reading a news article is equivalent to PTSD but it's a spectrum and we all sort of need to accept that different people have different abilities and tolerances when it comes to being exposed to extremism and propaganda - heck we'd all probably pride ourselves here as being able to see through the BS of most advertising but we also need to acknowledge that advertising is effective on a lot of folks.
1. As a society in general, I hope you'll allow.
I'm not saying that reading a news article is equivalent to PTSD but it's a spectrum and we all sort of need to accept that different people have different abilities and tolerances when it comes to being exposed to extremism and propaganda - heck we'd all probably pride ourselves here as being able to see through the BS of most advertising but we also need to acknowledge that advertising is effective on a lot of folks.
1. As a society in general, I hope you'll allow.
More accurately put, "more people than you'd ever imagine are susceptible to unreasonable arguments".
Too dumb, no. But definitely too gullible - and the is made worse by the profit that is to be made manipulating such people.
Too dumb, no. But definitely too gullible - and the is made worse by the profit that is to be made manipulating such people.
What can we expect when our education system values regurgitation over deliberation and cosuming facts versus discovering them?
But the population is too dumb to do a lot of things, "self governance" by believing what Rudy Giuliani lies about on Twitter isn't a valid source.
The same way that there are large pockets of disease outbreak in rich areas of the country because moms with accounting degrees think they're smart enough to be immunologists because they have an internet connection.
We're literally watching democracy die in real time and its directly due to social media and internet disinformation, on top of the already existing radio/tv disinformation.
The same way that there are large pockets of disease outbreak in rich areas of the country because moms with accounting degrees think they're smart enough to be immunologists because they have an internet connection.
We're literally watching democracy die in real time and its directly due to social media and internet disinformation, on top of the already existing radio/tv disinformation.
[deleted]
If it really is fascism vs. fascism (it isn't), why not choose the side where less people die?
Which side is that?
Just a thought, but the party closer to the ruling parties of nearly every other country where average life expectancy hasn't been on the decline, unlike the US.
Here is a comparison of US life expectancy vs a selection of socialist governed nations[0].
US life expectancy may have plateaued, but doesn't appear to be in decline, and it's still above even Cuba, which has perhaps the highest amount of social spending on healthcare as portion of GDP.
Meanwhile, Venezuela and Mexico are in clear declines.
With regards to which extremes of the political spectrum have the highest body counts, I would say the far-left Marxist states are the clear winners, with somewhere in the region of 42 to 160 million killed.
[0] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/life-expectancy?tab=chart...
US life expectancy may have plateaued, but doesn't appear to be in decline, and it's still above even Cuba, which has perhaps the highest amount of social spending on healthcare as portion of GDP.
Meanwhile, Venezuela and Mexico are in clear declines.
With regards to which extremes of the political spectrum have the highest body counts, I would say the far-left Marxist states are the clear winners, with somewhere in the region of 42 to 160 million killed.
[0] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/life-expectancy?tab=chart...
Just to clarify it looks like that chart has a number of specifically chosen countries. I'd suggest you add some more western countries with socialized medicine - Canada is well above the US as is the UK and I think those are both pretty comparable to the US in terms of personal wealth... Oh also Sweden is well above, but Sweden tends to be an outlier due to just how well socialism is working there.
Here is a copy of the chart with some additional countries: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/life-expectancy?tab=chart...
Here is a copy of the chart with some additional countries: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/life-expectancy?tab=chart...
Yeah, it was certainly cherry picked to illustrate a point.
Australia is even higher than Sweeden, yet both the UK and Australia are currently governed by conservative parties.
I'm an Australian myself, and in favor of socialized medicine, I just get annoyed by characterization of left vs right as a good vs evil scenario, as our polarized political discussion so often likes to do.
Australia is even higher than Sweeden, yet both the UK and Australia are currently governed by conservative parties.
I'm an Australian myself, and in favor of socialized medicine, I just get annoyed by characterization of left vs right as a good vs evil scenario, as our polarized political discussion so often likes to do.
Bo, because that is a false choice.
The answer is instead to support human rights and freedoms, and fight back against attempts to take away our freedoms no matter who is trying to take them away.
The answer is instead to support human rights and freedoms, and fight back against attempts to take away our freedoms no matter who is trying to take them away.
Well, one argument would be quality vs quantity, i.e. some people may not weigh all lives equally. Fascist systems seem to be good at promoting such outcomes.
We are a representative republic. Part of that reason is because it is too burdensome to expect the general public to have the information and expertise to be fully involved in governance. We delegate that responsibility to our representatives.
EDIT: I removed a line that was superfluous to my point and was drawing attention away from my actual point.
EDIT: I removed a line that was superfluous to my point and was drawing attention away from my actual point.
This gets repeated again and again, but is just wrong.
The USA is both a representative democracy and a republic - the same as most other democracies on this planet.
Republic just means that the government is a public affair - there is no monarch. It's the opposite of a monarchy.
The USA is both a representative democracy and a republic - the same as most other democracies on this planet.
Republic just means that the government is a public affair - there is no monarch. It's the opposite of a monarchy.
You are missing the point of my comment. The main focus is not the distinction between democracy and republic. It was that we do not govern ourselves directly. We elect people to do that for us because most of us aren't equipped to do it ourselves. The comment I was replying to called that fascism.
I removed the "We are not a democracy." line in my previous comment to refocus it on what I was really trying to say.
I removed the "We are not a democracy." line in my previous comment to refocus it on what I was really trying to say.
These kind of comments always get downvoted but it is pretty accurate. Certainly people like Madison didn’t want a thriving, egalitarian, democratic, civic culture and nation.
"But a representative democracy, where the right of election is well secured and regulated & the exercise of the legislative, executive and judiciary authorities, is vested in select persons, chosen really and not nominally by the people, will in my opinion be most likely to be happy, regular and durable." -- Alexander Hamilton
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-01-02-01...
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-01-02-01...
Aha. So you agree.
It's the talk of fascism if we then say "therefore, don't let the people make decisions". I'd much prefer:
"most people are not equipped to understand what is reasonable" ... and therefore let's help them to understand.
"most people are not equipped to understand what is reasonable" ... and therefore let's help them to understand.
Look at the story and tell me if that’s proof of the population’s ability to self govern or quite the contrary? I’m not really sure.
I think that's unfair. On this website specifically we're very tended towards college educated. If you follow the bright path you can end up being somewhat sheltered to the concerns and the motivations of much of the general population.
This leads to people being blindsided by things like Trump or Brexit. Its important to register that we tend towards a slanted world view.
This leads to people being blindsided by things like Trump or Brexit. Its important to register that we tend towards a slanted world view.
...and importantly, often unable to understand the perspective of others without resorting to patronizing explanations.
I have imperfectly adopted a principle in discourse: that if I have to resort to patronizing explanations to understand, I'm not working hard enough to understand.
I have imperfectly adopted a principle in discourse: that if I have to resort to patronizing explanations to understand, I'm not working hard enough to understand.
In democracy, majorities also hold power, which they do not in the US
It's not that the populace is stupid, it's that the populace is being fed misinformation.
It is the responsibility of, well, everyone, but especially those in power—journalists, politicians, pundits—to act in some semblance of good faith. To try to inform their audience. To not say things they know to be false.
The people storming the capital right now have been told by (1) the president of the united states, (2) the news channels they watch, and very possibly (3) their religious leaders, that Donald Trump would have won the election if not for a conspiracy to rig voting machines and throw away millions of ballots. So of course, in that case, the right thing to do is storm the capital and protect democracy!
The basic problem is that too many public figures have decided to reject their most basic responsibility to society. And I just don't know what to do about that.
It is the responsibility of, well, everyone, but especially those in power—journalists, politicians, pundits—to act in some semblance of good faith. To try to inform their audience. To not say things they know to be false.
The people storming the capital right now have been told by (1) the president of the united states, (2) the news channels they watch, and very possibly (3) their religious leaders, that Donald Trump would have won the election if not for a conspiracy to rig voting machines and throw away millions of ballots. So of course, in that case, the right thing to do is storm the capital and protect democracy!
The basic problem is that too many public figures have decided to reject their most basic responsibility to society. And I just don't know what to do about that.
Benevolent dictators is what we all need.
I’m fine with that as long as _I_ am the dictator, otherwise no.
"because most people are not equipped to understand what is reasonable"
> I hear this all the time now. But let's be clear -- this is the talk of fascism.
Nonetheless it seems objectively true to me. This may just be my biased perspective being substantially smarter than average, but I'm continually surprised by how gullible, uneducated, and uninformed the average person is. In the USA especially - stop skimping on your education system there!
I'm also surprised pleasantly by what humans in the aggregate accomplish, so it's not all doom and gloom.
> I hear this all the time now. But let's be clear -- this is the talk of fascism.
Nonetheless it seems objectively true to me. This may just be my biased perspective being substantially smarter than average, but I'm continually surprised by how gullible, uneducated, and uninformed the average person is. In the USA especially - stop skimping on your education system there!
I'm also surprised pleasantly by what humans in the aggregate accomplish, so it's not all doom and gloom.
If people are not equipped to deal with opposing viewpoints and critical thought, then perhaps the social organs of education have failed. Classical Western education prized dissent, debate, and dialectic for thousands of years, but education has changed dramatically in the decades since the 60s. Perhaps it is not for the better. Societies do not always progress upwards towards "more enlightened". Western education has stopped valuing objective truth, dissent, scientific method, and moral integrity. When those are gone, there is very little common ground between those who disagree, because even the method of discourse is gone. That is when force becomes valued by all sides, since they can no longer make any progress by words.
Im not sure the education has changed -- examples of previously not valuing truth include things like the south teaching that the civil war was about something other than slavery
What has changed is the scale of information though. We used to have small amounts of information and opinions to evaluat, but now there's huge amounts of information to deal with, and those techniques haven't updated to match.
Peer review of scientific publications is an example there - peer review used to involve things like visiting somebody's lab to try and disprove their new type of radiation theories, and now there's so many articles to review that nobody's reading them all, or putting the same level of review in
What has changed is the scale of information though. We used to have small amounts of information and opinions to evaluat, but now there's huge amounts of information to deal with, and those techniques haven't updated to match.
Peer review of scientific publications is an example there - peer review used to involve things like visiting somebody's lab to try and disprove their new type of radiation theories, and now there's so many articles to review that nobody's reading them all, or putting the same level of review in
Education has changed. Our educational institutions used to be a bastion of free speech where tolerance for disagreement was treasured. This is not the case today, where merely speaking disagreement to the majority narrative gets your professorship cancelled and gets students disciplined.
"Our educational institutions used to be a bastion of free speech where tolerance for disagreement was treasured."
Do you have a specific citation for that? There was Kent State. Before that they were racially and earlier, sexually, ethnically, and religiously, segregated.
What specific time period are you thinking of?
Do you have a specific citation for that? There was Kent State. Before that they were racially and earlier, sexually, ethnically, and religiously, segregated.
What specific time period are you thinking of?
I see this repeated constantly - how many cases have there been? I'm asking genuinely.
Funny you should ask, because I just happened to see Robin Hanson share [0] the exact statistics on this today.
2020: 64
2019: 11
2018: 13
2017: 9
2016: 4
2015: 4
[0] https://twitter.com/robinhanson/status/1346656330149470211
2020: 64
2019: 11
2018: 13
2017: 9
2016: 4
2015: 4
[0] https://twitter.com/robinhanson/status/1346656330149470211
Just glancing at the linked spreadsheet, I see way more than 4 events in 2020 for which termination is pretty clearly justified and necessary, so this trend seems to be driven at least in part by a change in behavior by professors and not just others' responses to that behavior. Also worth mentioning that the majority of the listed professors don't seem to have actually been fired or even disciplined - unsuccessful petitions and the like are included.
it's also the case that some groups have become hyper-vigilant about academic "cancellations" in the last several years, which could account for why so many purported incidents have occurred since more attention is being paid to the issue.
I don't see any evidence that this spreadsheet is the result of someone systematically reviewing every case of a professor or other academic being dismissed, rebuked or whatever since 2014, so I don't really see how it could constitute a trend.
I don't see any evidence that this spreadsheet is the result of someone systematically reviewing every case of a professor or other academic being dismissed, rebuked or whatever since 2014, so I don't really see how it could constitute a trend.
seeing a lot of people in this list "denounced in an open letter", "petitioned for firing" and the like. maybe we have different ideas about what it means to be "cancelled".
Even outside of explicit censorship I think that the US education system has been doing a very poor job lately in terms of promoting critical thinking skills. It's too common to see folks come out of the educational system with too much faith put in "both-sides-ism" it's important to empathize and understand different viewpoints but it is lazy to accept all differing views as being equally valid.
In what time frame though?
For instance, Galileo was not treated well for going against conventional wisdom, and nobody liked vis viva because it wasnt newton's momentum.
Are there people losing their jobs and being cancelled for going against the Copenhagen interpretation today?
Back in the 50s and 60s, Pete Seeger was banned from performing to anyone but young children by the FBI because he may have been a member of the Communist party -- including at educational institutions. Is that still happening today? Has that changed or something?
What's the difference in analytic technique that has changed since that time period? People are still writing essays, running experiments and measuring p values. These are still the methods being taught, too
For instance, Galileo was not treated well for going against conventional wisdom, and nobody liked vis viva because it wasnt newton's momentum.
Are there people losing their jobs and being cancelled for going against the Copenhagen interpretation today?
Back in the 50s and 60s, Pete Seeger was banned from performing to anyone but young children by the FBI because he may have been a member of the Communist party -- including at educational institutions. Is that still happening today? Has that changed or something?
What's the difference in analytic technique that has changed since that time period? People are still writing essays, running experiments and measuring p values. These are still the methods being taught, too
The only examples of this that I know of are literal holocaust deniers. I have never seen a professor with an argument that can be backed up with any amount of facts be disciplined.
I say batshit insane crazy stuff all the time that in hind-sight I didn't mean at all. Probably, I should work on thinking more before I speak. But - I like to speak my mind - even if it gets me in trouble some times.
I do think it's a problem that a lot of employees can and do get fired over saying dumb stuff - a lot of times that they didn't mean to say. Does this include Trump's famous "Grab them by the p#$$y" comment? Maybe.
However, there's this idea that people should basically be able to send out hate speech memos in a company and not be apprehended for "speaking their mind". These are completely different. One of them is premeditated idiocracy. The other is a mistake. We shouldn't confuse the two.
I do think it's a problem that a lot of employees can and do get fired over saying dumb stuff - a lot of times that they didn't mean to say. Does this include Trump's famous "Grab them by the p#$$y" comment? Maybe.
However, there's this idea that people should basically be able to send out hate speech memos in a company and not be apprehended for "speaking their mind". These are completely different. One of them is premeditated idiocracy. The other is a mistake. We shouldn't confuse the two.
I agree that education has changed for the worse in many ways, but might disagree with you on some of the specifics. Being direct, I see the republican party as having a very anti-science, anti-evidence, anti-facts disposition as evidenced by their attitudes toward evolution, gun-violence, COVID, etc.
>I see the republican party as having a very anti-science, anti-evidence, anti-facts disposition as evidenced by their attitudes toward evolution, gun-violence, COVID, etc.
One of my hobbies puts me among people who pretty homogeneously lean right. They say more or less the exact same thing about the left and on the same list of topics no less. I can paraphrase talking points if you would like. There is a fundamental and irreconcilable difference in beliefs between the left and the right when it comes to the what is right and what is wrong.
I think if you expanded your list of issues slightly you would be very hard pressed to find someone who is not a hardcore partisan from either party that does not believe that the "other party" has it right on at least one or two issues.
One of my hobbies puts me among people who pretty homogeneously lean right. They say more or less the exact same thing about the left and on the same list of topics no less. I can paraphrase talking points if you would like. There is a fundamental and irreconcilable difference in beliefs between the left and the right when it comes to the what is right and what is wrong.
I think if you expanded your list of issues slightly you would be very hard pressed to find someone who is not a hardcore partisan from either party that does not believe that the "other party" has it right on at least one or two issues.
I think this exposes some of the problem we're discussing though. Your view that one party is anti-evidence, anti-facts, anti-science betrays enormous bias or at least indicates that your information stream is very biased. There are plenty of examples of policy proposals from either party that can be described this way. Facts and evidence are conveniently ignored in the furtherance of policy, routinely. To say that this party or that party is _mostly_ unlike the other in this respect is itself "anti-evidence" or contrary to the objective evidence.
For example?
If people are not equipped to deal with opposing viewpoints and critical thought, then perhaps the social organs of education have failed.
Yes, arguably because certain political elements have made it their business to make damned sure those organs fail.
When educated people consistently vote for one party over the other, it's absurd to expect the losing party to support improvements to education. You'd have to be, well, poorly educated to think that.
And we all know who loves the poorly educated...
Yes, arguably because certain political elements have made it their business to make damned sure those organs fail.
When educated people consistently vote for one party over the other, it's absurd to expect the losing party to support improvements to education. You'd have to be, well, poorly educated to think that.
And we all know who loves the poorly educated...
What happened since the 60s in your opinion?
If I were to guess, it seems pubic policy in recent decades has often been founded on shaky ground. Anti-communism, anti-drug policy, various health/welfare policies, and so on are often not particularly evidence based. I can see this leading to a broader acceptance of dual-reality "facts" like we're seeing now. Words and truth lose meaning.
But is that new? I have no idea.
If I were to guess, it seems pubic policy in recent decades has often been founded on shaky ground. Anti-communism, anti-drug policy, various health/welfare policies, and so on are often not particularly evidence based. I can see this leading to a broader acceptance of dual-reality "facts" like we're seeing now. Words and truth lose meaning.
But is that new? I have no idea.
Yes. We had free speech but we weren't prepared for unedited, viral free speech. We weren't prepared for cameras in every ordinary person's hands. We also weren't prepared for our free speech to be archived and searchable forever.
I think it's easy to blame the symptoms of social media for the issues we have. But the internet, video quality bandwidth, smartphones, and social media together have combined to dramatically change who publishes and who finds it over the last 10-15 years.
In my mind, it is going to take us time to adapt, maybe a couple generations. Things will be difficult during that time but I hope we don't make regressive changes in our values based on what is fundamentally (in my opinion) an issue adapting our approach to free speech to the rapid advancement of publishing technology.
EDIT: "most people are not equipped to understand what is reasonable" -> This is the kind of dramatic conclusion I don't think we should be drawing.
I think it's easy to blame the symptoms of social media for the issues we have. But the internet, video quality bandwidth, smartphones, and social media together have combined to dramatically change who publishes and who finds it over the last 10-15 years.
In my mind, it is going to take us time to adapt, maybe a couple generations. Things will be difficult during that time but I hope we don't make regressive changes in our values based on what is fundamentally (in my opinion) an issue adapting our approach to free speech to the rapid advancement of publishing technology.
EDIT: "most people are not equipped to understand what is reasonable" -> This is the kind of dramatic conclusion I don't think we should be drawing.
A diverse information diet is a great thing, but you need the context and tools for understanding what you read. That means you need to understand math, science, history, social science, etc. at a somewhat advanced level to make sense of these things.
America has been good at free speech, and we should never give that up. But for free speech to result in advancement of society, rather than goons storming the Capitol, a good education is an absolute requirement, and the government has not given all Americans the opportunity to get a good education. There will be pressure to censor speech because people aren't equipped to process it -- we should resist that and focus on education instead. This is where we should be spending our money; this is what the government exists to do. Give everyone an equal standing to understand these sources of information. We're not doing that, and the results are bad.
America has been good at free speech, and we should never give that up. But for free speech to result in advancement of society, rather than goons storming the Capitol, a good education is an absolute requirement, and the government has not given all Americans the opportunity to get a good education. There will be pressure to censor speech because people aren't equipped to process it -- we should resist that and focus on education instead. This is where we should be spending our money; this is what the government exists to do. Give everyone an equal standing to understand these sources of information. We're not doing that, and the results are bad.
Education is the root of the solution for all problems.
It should always be one of the top priorities for any populace.
It should always be one of the top priorities for any populace.
You can lead a horse to knowledge, but you can't make him think.
An educated populace is also the most dangerous thing to anyone in power (politicians, business operators, etc.). Even without being a coordinated conspiracy, that is a constant force working against improved education.
You don't even have to postulate education being dangerous to people in power (something that I personally find to be more conspiracy than not).
It's enough to notice that there's near zero economic incentives for providing actual education. The market settled on an equilibrium of baseline operational knowledge + filtering through standardized testing, and then advanced operational knowledge acquired through voluntary higher education and on the job. And it continued to optimize accordingly. The only thing that makes people try to teach beyond this minimum is humanistic values, belief in importance of education. Against it works the entire economy, forcing individual teachers and schools alike to find savings, "cut out fat", make lean.
Free market is enough to explain the disaster education is becoming worldwide (because it's not just an US phenomenon; we start to see the same problems over here in Europe).
It's enough to notice that there's near zero economic incentives for providing actual education. The market settled on an equilibrium of baseline operational knowledge + filtering through standardized testing, and then advanced operational knowledge acquired through voluntary higher education and on the job. And it continued to optimize accordingly. The only thing that makes people try to teach beyond this minimum is humanistic values, belief in importance of education. Against it works the entire economy, forcing individual teachers and schools alike to find savings, "cut out fat", make lean.
Free market is enough to explain the disaster education is becoming worldwide (because it's not just an US phenomenon; we start to see the same problems over here in Europe).
Putting it even more directly - the inevitable outcome of free markets without any competing benign feedback loops is fascism.
So you (hypothetically, as a developer) make six figures? Superb.
How valuable is that when your country goes down in flames because it's easy to make money out of people who believe Bill Gates is seeding Covid via 5G towers?
So you (hypothetically, as a developer) make six figures? Superb.
How valuable is that when your country goes down in flames because it's easy to make money out of people who believe Bill Gates is seeding Covid via 5G towers?
> How valuable is that when your country goes down in flames because it's easy to make money out of people who believe Bill Gates is seeding Covid via 5G towers?
That's what I keep telling people around me. They're still bewildered that I don't go out of my way to "optimize" my way out of taxes, or that I'm in favor for raising the taxes for my income bracket. And it doesn't even take a civil war - as the income inequality progresses, how long will it take before your close family will start asking you (the hypothetical rich developer) for help? Will you turn them away, to enjoy your six figures in peace?
That's what I keep telling people around me. They're still bewildered that I don't go out of my way to "optimize" my way out of taxes, or that I'm in favor for raising the taxes for my income bracket. And it doesn't even take a civil war - as the income inequality progresses, how long will it take before your close family will start asking you (the hypothetical rich developer) for help? Will you turn them away, to enjoy your six figures in peace?
> as the income inequality progresses, how long will it take before your close family will start asking you (the hypothetical rich developer) for help?
and how much help will you be able to offer, given your prior lack of optimization for this very scenario?
> Will you turn them away, to enjoy your six figures in peace?
"I gave already, it was taken out of my income before I had a chance to spend it, go away now"
and how much help will you be able to offer, given your prior lack of optimization for this very scenario?
> Will you turn them away, to enjoy your six figures in peace?
"I gave already, it was taken out of my income before I had a chance to spend it, go away now"
Agreed. Everything seems hunky-dory until the guillotines come out, and then all the elites are like "Who? Me?".
Pretty darned valuable, especially when you move it into other assets
Isis may have taken over parts of Iraq and Syria, but that did not mean that the oil stopped flowing
Isis may have taken over parts of Iraq and Syria, but that did not mean that the oil stopped flowing
> Free market is enough to explain the disaster education is becoming worldwide
Where in the world is there a free market in education?
Where in the world is there a free market in education?
It's not about free market in education itself, but about everywhere else.
Teachers are overworked and underpaid, they can't afford to go far beyond what curriculum says they should. Parents demand schools prepare kids well for their adult life - which for almost all families means primarily preparing for a decent job. Thus the labor market is indirectly but strongly influencing the curriculum. Labor market demands a way to sort people, so standardized testing and pressure to choose your career at even earlier ages appears. On the other side, governments are embedded in the market reality, they need to manage their budgets and seek savings, so their prioritize, tightening the school system to provide what the market demands.
I could go on and draw some other feedback loops. But the point is that you can't disentangle schooling - or anything government - from the economic reality, and that this economic reality is sufficient in explaining the shape of education system. No conspiracy, or ill will by any rich and powerful agents needed.
Teachers are overworked and underpaid, they can't afford to go far beyond what curriculum says they should. Parents demand schools prepare kids well for their adult life - which for almost all families means primarily preparing for a decent job. Thus the labor market is indirectly but strongly influencing the curriculum. Labor market demands a way to sort people, so standardized testing and pressure to choose your career at even earlier ages appears. On the other side, governments are embedded in the market reality, they need to manage their budgets and seek savings, so their prioritize, tightening the school system to provide what the market demands.
I could go on and draw some other feedback loops. But the point is that you can't disentangle schooling - or anything government - from the economic reality, and that this economic reality is sufficient in explaining the shape of education system. No conspiracy, or ill will by any rich and powerful agents needed.
> Teachers are overworked and underpaid, they can't afford to go far beyond what curriculum says they should. Parents demand schools prepare kids well for their adult life - which for almost all families means primarily preparing for a decent job. Thus the labor market is indirectly but strongly influencing the curriculum. Labor market demands a way to sort people, so standardized testing and pressure to choose your career at even earlier ages appears. On the other side, governments are embedded in the market reality, they need to manage their budgets and seek savings, so their prioritize, tightening the school system to provide what the market demands.
If there's no slack in the system then how do you propose to expand the scope of function provided by a system running at its limitations?
> I could go on and draw some other feedback loops. But the point is that you can't disentangle schooling - or anything government - from the economic reality, and that this economic reality is sufficient in explaining the shape of education system. No conspiracy, or ill will by any rich and powerful agents needed.
I agree with this, which is why I questioned you. A free market in education would do a lot to empower educators to offer real, functioning education because they'd be able to charge what they needed and compensate their teachers appropriately.
If there's no slack in the system then how do you propose to expand the scope of function provided by a system running at its limitations?
> I could go on and draw some other feedback loops. But the point is that you can't disentangle schooling - or anything government - from the economic reality, and that this economic reality is sufficient in explaining the shape of education system. No conspiracy, or ill will by any rich and powerful agents needed.
I agree with this, which is why I questioned you. A free market in education would do a lot to empower educators to offer real, functioning education because they'd be able to charge what they needed and compensate their teachers appropriately.
> If there's no slack in the system then how do you propose to expand the scope of function provided by a system running at its limitations?
I don't. I do think that adding slack into the system is an important step in fixing educaction. But my comment was trying to point towards the question of how come there's no slack in the system? What ate it? Answer: market pressures. Not some elites thinking a dumber populace is easier to control and wishing a weaker educational system into existence.
> A free market in education would do a lot to empower educators to offer real, functioning education because they'd be able to charge what they needed and compensate their teachers appropriately.
I'm not disagreeing completely, but I have many concerns about this view. Free market is good at optimizing for behaviors that yield immediate, short-term profit. Good education is very hard to price, with profits following the actions by many decades. I fully expect that making education governed by the market directly would make it settle on even stranger proxies in lieu of delivering proper education. On top of that, free market for commodity labor doesn't equal happy labor, but rather unhappy labor living on minimum wage.
I don't. I do think that adding slack into the system is an important step in fixing educaction. But my comment was trying to point towards the question of how come there's no slack in the system? What ate it? Answer: market pressures. Not some elites thinking a dumber populace is easier to control and wishing a weaker educational system into existence.
> A free market in education would do a lot to empower educators to offer real, functioning education because they'd be able to charge what they needed and compensate their teachers appropriately.
I'm not disagreeing completely, but I have many concerns about this view. Free market is good at optimizing for behaviors that yield immediate, short-term profit. Good education is very hard to price, with profits following the actions by many decades. I fully expect that making education governed by the market directly would make it settle on even stranger proxies in lieu of delivering proper education. On top of that, free market for commodity labor doesn't equal happy labor, but rather unhappy labor living on minimum wage.
> how come there's no slack in the system? What ate it?
The lack of market pressure allowed the quantity of unnecessary/unwanted services to expand as the quality decreased (because people are still forced to pay for a failing educational system, bad teachers are shielded from accountability, and anyone who wants to pay for private education must pay twice).
> Answer: market pressures.
If you don't respond to the market telling you that you cost too much and provide too little, you shouldn't be surprised when you're unable to produce what you consume on the market and become dependent on additional assistance.
> Not some elites thinking a dumber populace is easier to control and wishing a weaker educational system into existence.
Can you provide some source substantiating your denial of this historical assertion?
> Free market is good at optimizing for behaviors that yield immediate, short-term profit. Good education is very hard to price, with profits following the actions by many decades.
Free market is also good at optimizing for means of production that deliver commodities and goods over the long term. The limitation is that the owner of the capital must have a long term vision he wishes to accomplish with his capital. Coercive systems decouple the vision-seer from the capital-owner by permitting the vision-seer to realize his vision by expropriating the necessary resources from individuals who do not share that vision. This replaces the impediment of needing a coincidence of capital and vision with the perverse incentives and moral hazards associated with expropriation.
> I fully expect that making education governed by the market directly would make it settle on even stranger proxies in lieu of delivering proper education.
Only as far as the people paying for the education approved those proxy results.
> free market for commodity labor doesn't equal happy labor, but rather unhappy labor living on minimum wage.
a free market wouldn't have a minimum wage by definition.
The lack of market pressure allowed the quantity of unnecessary/unwanted services to expand as the quality decreased (because people are still forced to pay for a failing educational system, bad teachers are shielded from accountability, and anyone who wants to pay for private education must pay twice).
> Answer: market pressures.
If you don't respond to the market telling you that you cost too much and provide too little, you shouldn't be surprised when you're unable to produce what you consume on the market and become dependent on additional assistance.
> Not some elites thinking a dumber populace is easier to control and wishing a weaker educational system into existence.
Can you provide some source substantiating your denial of this historical assertion?
> Free market is good at optimizing for behaviors that yield immediate, short-term profit. Good education is very hard to price, with profits following the actions by many decades.
Free market is also good at optimizing for means of production that deliver commodities and goods over the long term. The limitation is that the owner of the capital must have a long term vision he wishes to accomplish with his capital. Coercive systems decouple the vision-seer from the capital-owner by permitting the vision-seer to realize his vision by expropriating the necessary resources from individuals who do not share that vision. This replaces the impediment of needing a coincidence of capital and vision with the perverse incentives and moral hazards associated with expropriation.
> I fully expect that making education governed by the market directly would make it settle on even stranger proxies in lieu of delivering proper education.
Only as far as the people paying for the education approved those proxy results.
> free market for commodity labor doesn't equal happy labor, but rather unhappy labor living on minimum wage.
a free market wouldn't have a minimum wage by definition.
> a free market wouldn't have a minimum wage by definition.
This ignores the point? At a lower than minimum wage, you still don't have happy labour
This ignores the point? At a lower than minimum wage, you still don't have happy labour
You can reframe the 'elites thinking a dumber populace is easier to control's to 'a dumber populace is more profitable for elites'
And it's still just market pressures. Markets are just bad for people
And it's still just market pressures. Markets are just bad for people
It's not that people are unable to understand, it's that understanding isn't part of the game. It's about group membership and a lot of that is about knowing the "phrases" that make you seem like a member.
Easy bad ideas make for catchy phrases. The kinds of thoughts that are spreading across the US today would have been stopped by editorial accountability in an earlier era. I'm not sure education is the way to reduce the impact of easy bad ideas, because group members take on the catch phrases without thinking them through.
Easy bad ideas make for catchy phrases. The kinds of thoughts that are spreading across the US today would have been stopped by editorial accountability in an earlier era. I'm not sure education is the way to reduce the impact of easy bad ideas, because group members take on the catch phrases without thinking them through.
And back in the 1500s anyone could build a printer and rags for paper and crank out hundreds of broadsheets or pamphlets to be distributed all over town. Which lead to pulp fiction, the open exchange of ideas and the religious wars of the 1500s and onwards.
Open exchange of ideas is not new. It's just faster and cheaper now.
Open exchange of ideas is not new. It's just faster and cheaper now.
Think about what you're saying. Almost no one could actually do that. You had to be quite wealthy and incredibly well educated.
The point is that it was a step function. The bar suddenly dropped a huge amount. It went from "mostly just the church can produce written works" to "anyone who can afford the people to run a printing press can produce written works". It was a massive shock to the system.
> I think a lot of HN readers who are fairly sophisticated forget that half of the world is not. Diverse information diets are not a good thing, because most people are not equipped to understand what is reasonable.
Sophisticated people are just as prone to bias and cognitive error as unsophisticated people. The danger with limiting the spread of information is that the task of deciding what to censor is vulnerable to corruption by the interests of the censor.
Sophisticated people are just as prone to bias and cognitive error as unsophisticated people. The danger with limiting the spread of information is that the task of deciding what to censor is vulnerable to corruption by the interests of the censor.
This is supposed to be why we have a republic rather than a radicle democracy.
People forget, statistically half the population has an IQ below 100. And importantly, to be absolutely clear, that does not mean those people should not have a voice, or that they are “stupid”, far from it. It does however mean that certain issues are overwhelming complex to assume every American can make competent decisions on. Many of these rioters I’m sure don’t grasp how the very system they are protesting works on a fundamental level. If they believe the earth is flat, how can we expect them to understand the electoral college process, or the role of state versus federal government in our election process.
Certainly everyone’s voices need to be heard. When people and their families are struggling, many of them doing the jobs that make this country function, they are ignored. So when a savior seems to come before them, we need to be very vigilant.
We’ve seen these things happen before in history with other demagogues.
We expect in this country that all voices should be heard in order to elect people who’s job it is to lead. That’s the definition of a republic. That leadership should have killed the conspiracies and falsehoods from the start, protecting those of the democracy who are vulnerable, many of them suffering from the consequences of this pandemic.
Instead they sat on their hands. We need to hold our leaders responsible. We need to ask, en masse, for those leaders to hold each other accountable.
We also need to take ownership as a people. Us. We consume this media. We have created these social media companies, and allowed them to spread this stuff. Ultimately each and every one of us is responsible.
Let’s make sure going forward we ask more for those we ask to lead in our stead. Our vote isn’t the only thing we have to do that. We also have our voice and our 1st amendment. Let’s use it to the fullest.
People forget, statistically half the population has an IQ below 100. And importantly, to be absolutely clear, that does not mean those people should not have a voice, or that they are “stupid”, far from it. It does however mean that certain issues are overwhelming complex to assume every American can make competent decisions on. Many of these rioters I’m sure don’t grasp how the very system they are protesting works on a fundamental level. If they believe the earth is flat, how can we expect them to understand the electoral college process, or the role of state versus federal government in our election process.
Certainly everyone’s voices need to be heard. When people and their families are struggling, many of them doing the jobs that make this country function, they are ignored. So when a savior seems to come before them, we need to be very vigilant.
We’ve seen these things happen before in history with other demagogues.
We expect in this country that all voices should be heard in order to elect people who’s job it is to lead. That’s the definition of a republic. That leadership should have killed the conspiracies and falsehoods from the start, protecting those of the democracy who are vulnerable, many of them suffering from the consequences of this pandemic.
Instead they sat on their hands. We need to hold our leaders responsible. We need to ask, en masse, for those leaders to hold each other accountable.
We also need to take ownership as a people. Us. We consume this media. We have created these social media companies, and allowed them to spread this stuff. Ultimately each and every one of us is responsible.
Let’s make sure going forward we ask more for those we ask to lead in our stead. Our vote isn’t the only thing we have to do that. We also have our voice and our 1st amendment. Let’s use it to the fullest.
I think you are wrong. While the cost of authoring and distributing content are cheaper than ever and anyone can broadcast to the planet trivially, the ability to actually bring attention to your content has never been more scarce. It is deeply controlled and manipulated by huge confirmation-bias-as-service platforms in every recommender system, personalized ad system, and content feed across the mainstream internet.
Your fellow citizens deserve more credit. They have brains. They really can and almost always do form adequate understanding of reasonable takes on new information.
But when their eyeballs are subjected to consumerist bidding wars and ranking algorithms to inflame, to stoke fear and insecurity, to render feelings of inadequacy, and they are so thoroughly manipulated, then you get information monoculture.
We need information diversity and information vitamins. Instead we’re allowing ourselves to be spoonfed information junk food.
Your fellow citizens deserve more credit. They have brains. They really can and almost always do form adequate understanding of reasonable takes on new information.
But when their eyeballs are subjected to consumerist bidding wars and ranking algorithms to inflame, to stoke fear and insecurity, to render feelings of inadequacy, and they are so thoroughly manipulated, then you get information monoculture.
We need information diversity and information vitamins. Instead we’re allowing ourselves to be spoonfed information junk food.
I don't think that's true either. Before, bringing attention to your content required first getting the attention of some huge media organization, then piggybacking off. At the end of the day there's still only as much attention as there are people attending, but the barriers to entry are far lower today.
Meanwhile, our fellow citizens deserve no credit at all, and neither do we. No one has any real idea what's going on, we just either follow the herd or totally gamble. Even if someone was actually able to be correct about complex systems, it would be unverifiable.
Meanwhile, our fellow citizens deserve no credit at all, and neither do we. No one has any real idea what's going on, we just either follow the herd or totally gamble. Even if someone was actually able to be correct about complex systems, it would be unverifiable.
The stolen election claim is put forward by the President of the United States, not some random people with blogs.
The president's own information diet is often fueled from said blogs though. These conspiracy theories definitely weren't given to him by some intelligence agency or election official, so where do you think he got them from? He regularly retweets and repeats talking points created in the deepest parts of the internet.
> These conspiracy theories definitely weren't given to him by some intelligence agency or election official
Do you have a source for this comment? I'm pretty sure he heard about the allegations of fraud from actual purported witnesses who filed sworn affidavits. Those blogs that you're saying he gets the information from have hyperlinks to the documents filed by his legal team. I'm thinking the blogs got it from him, not the other way around.
Do you have a source for this comment? I'm pretty sure he heard about the allegations of fraud from actual purported witnesses who filed sworn affidavits. Those blogs that you're saying he gets the information from have hyperlinks to the documents filed by his legal team. I'm thinking the blogs got it from him, not the other way around.
> witnesses who filed sworn affidavits
Which are not intelligence agencies nor election officials. Anyone can sign an affidavit, it's not some magical paper.
If intelligence services or elections officials had found something, they would've announced it officially, instead they have announced the opposite. [0] [1]
> I'm thinking the blogs got it from him, not the other way around.
Trump is regularly retweeting information that has no other source or basis than theories created in the deep bowels of the internet. [2] (and hundreds more)
[0] https://www.cisa.gov/news/2020/11/12/joint-statement-electio...
[1] https://www.cisa.gov/news/2020/11/12/joint-statement-electio...
[2] https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-la-ballots-idUS...
Which are not intelligence agencies nor election officials. Anyone can sign an affidavit, it's not some magical paper.
If intelligence services or elections officials had found something, they would've announced it officially, instead they have announced the opposite. [0] [1]
> I'm thinking the blogs got it from him, not the other way around.
Trump is regularly retweeting information that has no other source or basis than theories created in the deep bowels of the internet. [2] (and hundreds more)
[0] https://www.cisa.gov/news/2020/11/12/joint-statement-electio...
[1] https://www.cisa.gov/news/2020/11/12/joint-statement-electio...
[2] https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-la-ballots-idUS...
> Which are not intelligence agencies nor election officials. Anyone can sign an affidavit, it's not some magical paper.
They are poll workers who claim (under penalty of perjury) to have witnessed illegal or election-tampering conduct.
> Trump is regularly retweeting information that has no other source or basis than theories created in the deep bowels of the internet.
Its presumptuous for you to pretend to know the sources available to POTUS.
>> There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised.
This from the guy who was fired because he continued to claim there was no evidence when people were presenting evidence of election tampering and begging the government to investigate before the evidence trail grew cold.
They are poll workers who claim (under penalty of perjury) to have witnessed illegal or election-tampering conduct.
> Trump is regularly retweeting information that has no other source or basis than theories created in the deep bowels of the internet.
Its presumptuous for you to pretend to know the sources available to POTUS.
>> There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised.
This from the guy who was fired because he continued to claim there was no evidence when people were presenting evidence of election tampering and begging the government to investigate before the evidence trail grew cold.
If you want to go specific, the blogs got it from Trump's team, then trump got it from the blogs, ignoring whatever his team told him directly
He said it multiple times this morning on The Ellipse, before he instructed his supporters to go to the capitol.
He has tweeted today his displeasure at Mike Pence if he doesn't reject the Electoral College votes.
And he has tweeted moments ago, yet again, that he won in a landslide and that he and his supporters have had the election win viciously stripped away from them.
Whether it's delusional or some malicious intent to incite violence, I think doesn't even matter. He should be impeached, removed from office, and banned from ever holding office again. The priority must be, counting the state certified Electoral College votes, and certifying the result. Following that, Congress could impeach and remove Trump from office in half a day, if they want. Their normal speed is glacial, but that's institutional momentum. They can move very quickly, if they want to, they just usually don't want to.
He has tweeted today his displeasure at Mike Pence if he doesn't reject the Electoral College votes.
And he has tweeted moments ago, yet again, that he won in a landslide and that he and his supporters have had the election win viciously stripped away from them.
Whether it's delusional or some malicious intent to incite violence, I think doesn't even matter. He should be impeached, removed from office, and banned from ever holding office again. The priority must be, counting the state certified Electoral College votes, and certifying the result. Following that, Congress could impeach and remove Trump from office in half a day, if they want. Their normal speed is glacial, but that's institutional momentum. They can move very quickly, if they want to, they just usually don't want to.
What? “Diverse information diets are not a good thing, because most people are not equipped to understand what is reasonable.” Do you realize how elitist and even authoritarian that statement is.
Does elitist and authoritarian imply false?
Being reasonable is time consuming, expensive, requires constant education and a mind open to accepting that being wrong is ok. It’s elitist almost by definition. I don’t see how you got authoritarian in the equation, though.
Being reasonable is time consuming, expensive, requires constant education and a mind open to accepting that being wrong is ok. It’s elitist almost by definition. I don’t see how you got authoritarian in the equation, though.
The very notion of putting people in the category of sophisticated and unsophisticated, is a form of classism. It gets into the realm of authoritarianism when we start wanting people to be making decisions for others based on this. This not something we should be doing in a free society.
I don't think it's classist to acknowledge that a lot of people do not have the privilege or time to thoroughly investigate the accuracy and biases of the information they are receiving.
The response to this should be to ensure everyone does have the education and free time to be able to deal with this type of misinformation, but that runs contrary to the goals of those who benefit from the status quo.
The response to this should be to ensure everyone does have the education and free time to be able to deal with this type of misinformation, but that runs contrary to the goals of those who benefit from the status quo.
Not if it is accompanied with a simultaneous desire offer the populace the tools to become more savvy at understanding the world around them with an education in history, politics, economics, ethics, science, etc.
It isn’t about information diversity. Diversity is sought to counteract the real problem, which is that news isn’t news. It’s entertainment. Journalism no longer presents fact. They present an interpretation of facts, ostensibly spun and sensationalized toward the ideology of their viewers. 30 years ago this didn’t happen. You could watch any of the nightly news shows and walk away more or less with the same understanding of current affairs. That’s not true anymore. Why did this happen? Because infotainment generates more viewers and therefore more ad revenue. It’s also a means for politicians to galvanize the electorate and stir up hysteria to their benefit.
Yes. And a large chunk of population simply aligns based on emotion and do not have the desire to learn. This applies to all categories of people, including myself.
I agree with the first paragraph, but strongly disagree with the second.
Those regimes that filtered information very narrowly constrained ideas to align with the status quo. That was sometimes good, but often held back people with minority views from finding and organizing with each other. Progressive social movements and positive new possibilities have come out of this, in addition to reactionary ones.
What we do have to do is figure out how to have a shared view of the world that is less authoritarian than in the past. People now try to get the private platforms to enforce particular viewpoints through deplatforming and such. I am sympathetic to this as a practical matter, but don't think it is a viable long-term solution, as it will just lead us back to where we were, except with different people calling the shots.
Those regimes that filtered information very narrowly constrained ideas to align with the status quo. That was sometimes good, but often held back people with minority views from finding and organizing with each other. Progressive social movements and positive new possibilities have come out of this, in addition to reactionary ones.
What we do have to do is figure out how to have a shared view of the world that is less authoritarian than in the past. People now try to get the private platforms to enforce particular viewpoints through deplatforming and such. I am sympathetic to this as a practical matter, but don't think it is a viable long-term solution, as it will just lead us back to where we were, except with different people calling the shots.
We had more diverse access but less diverse consumption.
I think there’s a difference between diverse information being available, and people actually being exposed yo diverse viewpoints. With engagement driven social media more people than ever have a voice, but individuals are also fed a custom tuned diet of only a narrow range of views.
If you go looking for different opinions you can find them, but most people don’t do that. They let an algorithm generate their opinions for them by excluding anything that might challenge their views from their feed.
If you go looking for different opinions you can find them, but most people don’t do that. They let an algorithm generate their opinions for them by excluding anything that might challenge their views from their feed.
Agreed.
With every new communication medium comes new responsibility.
When radio was first introduced, it was rife with misinformation and false advertising. One Dr. Brinkly made a fortune selling fake goat testicle transplants (for treating ED) over the radio, only to relocate it to the Mexican border when he was shut down. He made so much money that he ran for Governor and received 30% of the vote.
We're kind of in the same place right now, but with a much broader medium. How we move forward is anyone's guess.
With every new communication medium comes new responsibility.
When radio was first introduced, it was rife with misinformation and false advertising. One Dr. Brinkly made a fortune selling fake goat testicle transplants (for treating ED) over the radio, only to relocate it to the Mexican border when he was shut down. He made so much money that he ran for Governor and received 30% of the vote.
We're kind of in the same place right now, but with a much broader medium. How we move forward is anyone's guess.
> Twenty years ago we had far less diverse access to information.
Yes. And thirty or forty or fifty years ago (remember the Internet itself is more than 20 years old), we had even less diverse access.
However, that does not mean the information we got back then was more reliable than the information we get now. It just means it was harder back then for we the people to spot when we were being misinformed, lied to, or just plain not told about things we should have been told about.
Yes. And thirty or forty or fifty years ago (remember the Internet itself is more than 20 years old), we had even less diverse access.
However, that does not mean the information we got back then was more reliable than the information we get now. It just means it was harder back then for we the people to spot when we were being misinformed, lied to, or just plain not told about things we should have been told about.
People back then could print anything. We have more population of people in the country, more then ever - and more outlets but it does not change how information is disseminated
- from Thomas Paine Common Sense, to getting all the farmers with pitchfolks to revolt over whiskey tax to the newspaper boy shouting on the corner.
It's really the same coin.
- from Thomas Paine Common Sense, to getting all the farmers with pitchfolks to revolt over whiskey tax to the newspaper boy shouting on the corner.
It's really the same coin.
This mindset is terrifying and yet most people here would probably agree with you.
We are headed for dark times unless people like you are removed from positions of power.
We are headed for dark times unless people like you are removed from positions of power.
Half of the population has a below-average IQ. Maybe 10% of those with an above average IQ are Dark Triad personalities somewhere on the toxic spectrum between narcissism and sociopathy.
Economic values operate to reward them, and to punish - or at least inconvenience - those with less toxic values. So naturally the Dark Triad types have a very strong incentive to exploit the below-average. And the more below average and cognitively unsophisticated they are, the easier it is to exploit them.
This isn't even about Left vs Right. It's about how you design a political and economic system that can handle these challenges without imploding.
Economic values operate to reward them, and to punish - or at least inconvenience - those with less toxic values. So naturally the Dark Triad types have a very strong incentive to exploit the below-average. And the more below average and cognitively unsophisticated they are, the easier it is to exploit them.
This isn't even about Left vs Right. It's about how you design a political and economic system that can handle these challenges without imploding.
A lot of this stuff comes via talk radio, not twitter or YouTube, and that's not exactly new technology.
I think you're confusing cause and effect. The problem is that people don't trust the same "professionals" to "filter" their news. People trusted Cronkite. There wasn't a huge market for "here's the news Cronkite won't tell you." Even when the country got super divided during Vietnam.
Now, I don't know why people have lost faith in professionals. I have my theory, which is that there has been a really significant ideological divergence between the professional class and ordinary people.
Let me give you an example. I don't want to litigate the specific example, but I'm just using it to illustrate. I read a lot of Matt Yglesias. He's very smart. But as far as I can tell, he doesn't believe in culture. Like, he doesn't believe it exists. He doesn't understand why people are attached to theirs. So when he talks about immigration, he draws these dichotomies "well there is the economic aspect of the immigration debate, then the xenophobia aspect."
I come from a country where a bunch of brown Muslims declared independence from other brown Muslims over the particular Indo-Aryan language they spoke. Bangladeshis would flip out if, for example, a quarter of the country was suddenly Pakistani. Not because they dislike Pakistanis. (I.e. Xenophobia.) But they are very attached to their own culture and don't want anyone to come and change it. One of the most powerful forces in the world is peoples' attachment to soil, language, religion, and shared food, history, art, customs, etc. Yglesias boils all of that down to "xenophobia."
Now, I'm quite the opposite. I get sad I'm going to die 10,000 miles away from where my ancestors are buried. I'm a bit jealous that my wife's family all lives within 2 hours of where they came over to Oregon on the wagon trains 170 years ago, while mine is scattered around the world in a diaspora. So when I listen to Yglesias, I cringe at some of his takes. I trust him because I've read a lot of his work, but I don't think he understands me or people like me. I can just imagine someone who don't want to put in the effort tuning him out.
The professional class is increasingly full of people like Matt Yglesias. Not just "liberal" in terms of supporting this healthcare policy or that one. Or in thinking the Vietnam was was a bad idea. But "liberal" in terms of not sharing a lot of basic premises with ordinary people, like “is it legitimate to be concerned about culture changing in your community.” It’s very hard for people who don’t share those views on basic things like that to talk to each other productively. I think that's a huge part of eroding trust in professionals.
I think you're confusing cause and effect. The problem is that people don't trust the same "professionals" to "filter" their news. People trusted Cronkite. There wasn't a huge market for "here's the news Cronkite won't tell you." Even when the country got super divided during Vietnam.
Now, I don't know why people have lost faith in professionals. I have my theory, which is that there has been a really significant ideological divergence between the professional class and ordinary people.
Let me give you an example. I don't want to litigate the specific example, but I'm just using it to illustrate. I read a lot of Matt Yglesias. He's very smart. But as far as I can tell, he doesn't believe in culture. Like, he doesn't believe it exists. He doesn't understand why people are attached to theirs. So when he talks about immigration, he draws these dichotomies "well there is the economic aspect of the immigration debate, then the xenophobia aspect."
I come from a country where a bunch of brown Muslims declared independence from other brown Muslims over the particular Indo-Aryan language they spoke. Bangladeshis would flip out if, for example, a quarter of the country was suddenly Pakistani. Not because they dislike Pakistanis. (I.e. Xenophobia.) But they are very attached to their own culture and don't want anyone to come and change it. One of the most powerful forces in the world is peoples' attachment to soil, language, religion, and shared food, history, art, customs, etc. Yglesias boils all of that down to "xenophobia."
Now, I'm quite the opposite. I get sad I'm going to die 10,000 miles away from where my ancestors are buried. I'm a bit jealous that my wife's family all lives within 2 hours of where they came over to Oregon on the wagon trains 170 years ago, while mine is scattered around the world in a diaspora. So when I listen to Yglesias, I cringe at some of his takes. I trust him because I've read a lot of his work, but I don't think he understands me or people like me. I can just imagine someone who don't want to put in the effort tuning him out.
The professional class is increasingly full of people like Matt Yglesias. Not just "liberal" in terms of supporting this healthcare policy or that one. Or in thinking the Vietnam was was a bad idea. But "liberal" in terms of not sharing a lot of basic premises with ordinary people, like “is it legitimate to be concerned about culture changing in your community.” It’s very hard for people who don’t share those views on basic things like that to talk to each other productively. I think that's a huge part of eroding trust in professionals.
I enjoyed reading this. But I'm confused. You posit Yglesias as a member of "the professional class", which you contrast with "ordinary people", and in particular, people like yourself.
But in your profile here on HN, you describe yourself as:
> I'm an appellate lawyer. In a past life, I was an engineer at a cognitive radio startup.
I'm puzzled at why you see the distinction as having anything to do with "the professional class".
I think the word you could have used to good effect here is "cosmopolitan". Its meaning is a subtle and probably used a little differently by different people, but I take it to describe a person somewhat like myself who (unlike you) doesn't have much of an attachment to "soil, language, religion, and shared food, history, art, customs", but instead sees all of the culture of humanity as their birthright, and who feels free to pick and choose (subject to certain political and economic constraints). I find it personally important to me to be able to combine things I love from different cultures from all over the world, and I confess that I regard those with a strong attachment to whatever they perceive as "their culture" as somehow a little (or a lot!) backwards. I also confess to a genuine irritation with anyone who expresses ideas that suggest that certain culture is "owned" by specific groups of people.
Clearly, we have quite different views of the world and our place in it. But I'm still confused why you put Yglesias and his cosmopolitan views in "the professional class" when it seems (from your being here on HN as well as your profile) that you are also a member of this class. Surely Yglesias is just a cosmopolitan sort of person, and you are not?
If so, it's really about "the professional class" vs "ordinary people", it's about people (like me) who view cosmopolitanism as central to the great hope for a peaceful and prosperous future for humanity, and people (perhaps such as yourself) who feel that belonging to a particular culture (and place?) is central their identity and presumably their conceptions of the future.
But in your profile here on HN, you describe yourself as:
> I'm an appellate lawyer. In a past life, I was an engineer at a cognitive radio startup.
I'm puzzled at why you see the distinction as having anything to do with "the professional class".
I think the word you could have used to good effect here is "cosmopolitan". Its meaning is a subtle and probably used a little differently by different people, but I take it to describe a person somewhat like myself who (unlike you) doesn't have much of an attachment to "soil, language, religion, and shared food, history, art, customs", but instead sees all of the culture of humanity as their birthright, and who feels free to pick and choose (subject to certain political and economic constraints). I find it personally important to me to be able to combine things I love from different cultures from all over the world, and I confess that I regard those with a strong attachment to whatever they perceive as "their culture" as somehow a little (or a lot!) backwards. I also confess to a genuine irritation with anyone who expresses ideas that suggest that certain culture is "owned" by specific groups of people.
Clearly, we have quite different views of the world and our place in it. But I'm still confused why you put Yglesias and his cosmopolitan views in "the professional class" when it seems (from your being here on HN as well as your profile) that you are also a member of this class. Surely Yglesias is just a cosmopolitan sort of person, and you are not?
If so, it's really about "the professional class" vs "ordinary people", it's about people (like me) who view cosmopolitanism as central to the great hope for a peaceful and prosperous future for humanity, and people (perhaps such as yourself) who feel that belonging to a particular culture (and place?) is central their identity and presumably their conceptions of the future.
> I'm puzzled at why you see the distinction as having anything to do with "the professional class".
I think the word you could have used to good effect here is "cosmopolitan".
Let me make clear that I’m not making value judgments here. Obviously I have my views, but I’m just trying to describe what I’m experiencing.
Putting that aside, I agree “cosmopolitan” describes aspects of this as well. But economic trends have caused the professional class to become much more cosmopolitan than it used to be. In the law, for example, it used to be most companies used local or regional firms. Today, stuff is increasingly consolidated in NY/DC/SF. The same is true of the news media, etc. As a result, these industries are increasingly filled with people who were okay moving halfway across the country to pursue opportunities. And the process of moving itself reduces some of those traditional attachments to place.
This is happening internationally. Surveys show that the vast majority of people in Asia wouldn’t immigrate to another country even if they had the chance. So places like Silicon Valley are increasingly filled with people who are a little different than the normal person in the country they left behind.
As for me, I came to DC at age 5 with my parents so it’s not like I had much of a choice. And it’s hard to be “from” DC since everyone here is so transient. Even then, I moved back when my wife and I had kids and we live 10 minutes from my parents.
> Surely Yglesias is just a cosmopolitan sort of person, and you are not?
Yes, I think that’s true. But as explained above, there are a lot more cosmopolitans in my profession than the average place. The median American lives less than 18 miles from their mom. The median American lawyer or journalist certainly doesn’t. I remember scrambling to get a passport when my boss decided we were going to Germany with two days notice. My passport had been expired for years.
> Who feel that belonging to a particular culture (and place?) is central their identity and presumably their conceptions of the future.
And just happiness. I don’t mind if my kids go out somewhere else for college, but I want them to come back to Maryland and raise kids. I travel for work, and my wife and I like to go to random Midwestern cities once a year for vacation, and I really love Japan, but traveling for the sake of it doesn’t do much for me.
Cosmopolitanism is one aspect of how the professional class is different. Religion is another. There are more religious people than you’d think in the professional class, but everyone keeps it pretty DL and churchgoing isn’t a typical weekly activity. Education is obviously another, and that’s got a lot of knock-on effects. I’ve been trying to explain the new meaning of the term “racism” to my dad and he’s pretty perplexed. He never went to college in the US, and prides himself on “not being a hyphenated American.”
For the most part, people can just sort into the kind of life they want. But when the media becomes highly nationalized, it becomes a challenge. I’m politically a pretty liberal person (I was a Democrat most of my adult life) and it’s just hard for me to read mainstream news these days. I stick to Bloomberg which tends to be pretty neutral. I have to admit, I read foxnews.com or WSJ when 10 years ago I would’ve read the NYT. Not because I think “these people are bad” or anything like that, I just don’t want to fight with the impedance mismatch to see what happened in the GA election.
Notably, the local news doesn’t create this tension. The Capital Gazette here in Annapolis doesn’t make me want to flip to Fox.
Let me make clear that I’m not making value judgments here. Obviously I have my views, but I’m just trying to describe what I’m experiencing.
Putting that aside, I agree “cosmopolitan” describes aspects of this as well. But economic trends have caused the professional class to become much more cosmopolitan than it used to be. In the law, for example, it used to be most companies used local or regional firms. Today, stuff is increasingly consolidated in NY/DC/SF. The same is true of the news media, etc. As a result, these industries are increasingly filled with people who were okay moving halfway across the country to pursue opportunities. And the process of moving itself reduces some of those traditional attachments to place.
This is happening internationally. Surveys show that the vast majority of people in Asia wouldn’t immigrate to another country even if they had the chance. So places like Silicon Valley are increasingly filled with people who are a little different than the normal person in the country they left behind.
As for me, I came to DC at age 5 with my parents so it’s not like I had much of a choice. And it’s hard to be “from” DC since everyone here is so transient. Even then, I moved back when my wife and I had kids and we live 10 minutes from my parents.
> Surely Yglesias is just a cosmopolitan sort of person, and you are not?
Yes, I think that’s true. But as explained above, there are a lot more cosmopolitans in my profession than the average place. The median American lives less than 18 miles from their mom. The median American lawyer or journalist certainly doesn’t. I remember scrambling to get a passport when my boss decided we were going to Germany with two days notice. My passport had been expired for years.
> Who feel that belonging to a particular culture (and place?) is central their identity and presumably their conceptions of the future.
And just happiness. I don’t mind if my kids go out somewhere else for college, but I want them to come back to Maryland and raise kids. I travel for work, and my wife and I like to go to random Midwestern cities once a year for vacation, and I really love Japan, but traveling for the sake of it doesn’t do much for me.
Cosmopolitanism is one aspect of how the professional class is different. Religion is another. There are more religious people than you’d think in the professional class, but everyone keeps it pretty DL and churchgoing isn’t a typical weekly activity. Education is obviously another, and that’s got a lot of knock-on effects. I’ve been trying to explain the new meaning of the term “racism” to my dad and he’s pretty perplexed. He never went to college in the US, and prides himself on “not being a hyphenated American.”
For the most part, people can just sort into the kind of life they want. But when the media becomes highly nationalized, it becomes a challenge. I’m politically a pretty liberal person (I was a Democrat most of my adult life) and it’s just hard for me to read mainstream news these days. I stick to Bloomberg which tends to be pretty neutral. I have to admit, I read foxnews.com or WSJ when 10 years ago I would’ve read the NYT. Not because I think “these people are bad” or anything like that, I just don’t want to fight with the impedance mismatch to see what happened in the GA election.
Notably, the local news doesn’t create this tension. The Capital Gazette here in Annapolis doesn’t make me want to flip to Fox.
So I guess the Biharis are what, chopped liver? You should remember that Mujib ended his famous speech with Joy Bangla, joy Pakistan but the last part gets left out.
Interesting I’ve never heard that: https://www.dhakatribune.com/bangladesh/dhaka/2019/06/01/ak-...
Maybe I’m understating the actual xenophobia towards Pakistanis in Bangladesh. I’m (inadvertently) rather ignorant some of these things because my knowledge is second hand through family. My parents were strongly pro-independence, and my uncle was in the army.
Maybe I’m understating the actual xenophobia towards Pakistanis in Bangladesh. I’m (inadvertently) rather ignorant some of these things because my knowledge is second hand through family. My parents were strongly pro-independence, and my uncle was in the army.
The biggest thing that I’ve seen in the news haven’t come from lies but from removal of context.
Anything can be made more inflammatory if you remove key details while still remaining factually correct.
- Tim punched Bob
- Bob punched Tim
- Bob and Tim shake hands
Reported as...
- Bob punched Tim
Factually correct but lacking context. Unless the reader knows the entire story be putting it together from multiple reports, this will create a skewed view of any report. This happens all the time with headline circulation where nobody reads the article.
If you’ve ever seen reporting or articles on something where you have deep expertise, you’ll spot it immediately because you know exactly what’s been left out. Nobody else does though.
And honestly, I have no idea what to do about it unless somebody can create a site to aggregate news from multiple sources to highlight what’s missing from each one.
Anything can be made more inflammatory if you remove key details while still remaining factually correct.
- Tim punched Bob
- Bob punched Tim
- Bob and Tim shake hands
Reported as...
- Bob punched Tim
Factually correct but lacking context. Unless the reader knows the entire story be putting it together from multiple reports, this will create a skewed view of any report. This happens all the time with headline circulation where nobody reads the article.
If you’ve ever seen reporting or articles on something where you have deep expertise, you’ll spot it immediately because you know exactly what’s been left out. Nobody else does though.
And honestly, I have no idea what to do about it unless somebody can create a site to aggregate news from multiple sources to highlight what’s missing from each one.
The most promising category of approach seems to me to be an adversarial one. Level 1 is having one side present their case—basically the status quo. Level 2 is having some group of people with a strong incentive to find flaws and what's missing, and with a platform on which to present their criticisms. Level 3 is to have people (possibly from the first group, possibly other members of the second group) critique the criticisms, and possibly iterate that. Level 4 might include live debates, although that has pros and cons relative to written arguments.
A tactic that I suspect would be useful is the ability to call out specific things—"Yeah, a bunch of this stuff is arguable and murky, but that thing you said right there is wrong and I can prove it; I will stake a chunk of my reputation on this, and we will litigate the issue, and if I'm successful, it should damage your reputation and boost mine"—combined with people expecting to be in the system for long enough that reputations are worthwhile. ("Wrong" will include "factually wrong" and might also include "against the rules of this system"—it might be sensible to have rules about claims needing to be backed up by certain kinds of evidence.)
I think at least some parts of academia were supposed to work something like this, and maybe a few parts of it actually do.
A tactic that I suspect would be useful is the ability to call out specific things—"Yeah, a bunch of this stuff is arguable and murky, but that thing you said right there is wrong and I can prove it; I will stake a chunk of my reputation on this, and we will litigate the issue, and if I'm successful, it should damage your reputation and boost mine"—combined with people expecting to be in the system for long enough that reputations are worthwhile. ("Wrong" will include "factually wrong" and might also include "against the rules of this system"—it might be sensible to have rules about claims needing to be backed up by certain kinds of evidence.)
I think at least some parts of academia were supposed to work something like this, and maybe a few parts of it actually do.
https://www.allsides.com/unbiased-balanced-news is based around your closing statement. I make no claim about how well they do it, I just know they exist.
Interesting. "Top stories" are presented with three articles: one "From the Left", one "From the Center", and one "From the Right". For example, an update about the subject of this thread has articles from CNN, Reuters, and New York Post in those respective categories. Looks like the "top stories" are presented with a "headline roundup", presumably written by an AllSides person, which (judging from two examples) tends to say things like "Left-rated outlets were more likely to highlight [...]; Right-rated outlets featured [...]". There are also three general feeds of "News from the (Left|Center|Right)" in parallel at the bottom.
This seems at least like the type of experiment that would be worth trying.
This seems at least like the type of experiment that would be worth trying.
> The biggest thing that I’ve seen in the news haven’t come from lies but from removal of context.
Also, it will be interesting is which "news" outlets label this as riots and which label it as protests.
Also, it will be interesting is which "news" outlets label this as riots and which label it as protests.
CNN: And here are the results of the golf tournament between Joe Biden and Donald Trump. Biden took the second place. Trump was just one row above the looser.
Reflecting the same joke for Fox News is left as an exercise to the reader.
Reflecting the same joke for Fox News is left as an exercise to the reader.
I would heartily agree and go a bit further.
Over the last three decades, news organizations have traded in their neutrality and integrity for political and "narrative" influence. It is exceedingly difficult to find information presented without some attempt to mislead.
The short version: There are no more Walter Cronkites or Edward R. Murrows the nation trusts to present the news without filter or spin.
That coupled with the algorithmically enhanced echo-chambers of social media you mention, multiplied by two decades of teaching outrage and protest instead of critical thinking and history, gets you this.
Over the last three decades, news organizations have traded in their neutrality and integrity for political and "narrative" influence. It is exceedingly difficult to find information presented without some attempt to mislead.
The short version: There are no more Walter Cronkites or Edward R. Murrows the nation trusts to present the news without filter or spin.
That coupled with the algorithmically enhanced echo-chambers of social media you mention, multiplied by two decades of teaching outrage and protest instead of critical thinking and history, gets you this.
> Over the last three decades, news organizations have traded in their neutrality and integrity for political and "narrative" influence.
Have you ever actually read examples of newspapers and news reporting from the earlier parts of the 20th century? The dishonest, mendacious bias in favor of any media source's ideological preference was extreme to a degree that even today isn't readily visible. Certain media empires were absolutely ruled by their owners and even major papers like the New York Times were often loaded in slant towards certain ideological narratives. Just to name one example: Read about Walter Duranty. Things were even more vicious in the 19th century.... I have no idea where this notion of once fair, objective news sources comes from but it's certainly not rooted in the practical reality (referring in all of this to U.S media and politics, regarding other countries things get more ambiguous and complciated probably).
Have you ever actually read examples of newspapers and news reporting from the earlier parts of the 20th century? The dishonest, mendacious bias in favor of any media source's ideological preference was extreme to a degree that even today isn't readily visible. Certain media empires were absolutely ruled by their owners and even major papers like the New York Times were often loaded in slant towards certain ideological narratives. Just to name one example: Read about Walter Duranty. Things were even more vicious in the 19th century.... I have no idea where this notion of once fair, objective news sources comes from but it's certainly not rooted in the practical reality (referring in all of this to U.S media and politics, regarding other countries things get more ambiguous and complciated probably).
I think you and GP are talking about different time periods. Walter Cronkite is 50s to 70s, the postwar figurehead when there were like 3 TV channels. That's where the notion of a shared reality comes from. And I guess this was still pretty strong into the 90s, everyone watched gulf war I on CNN right?
Whereas Walter Duranty was a big deal in the 20s & 30s, in much more fragmented & volatile times. Although how much their fragmentation resembles ours I don't know. They had many far-out newspapers but still only a few radio shows, and perhaps a larger role for shared institutions like churches & public schools?
Whereas Walter Duranty was a big deal in the 20s & 30s, in much more fragmented & volatile times. Although how much their fragmentation resembles ours I don't know. They had many far-out newspapers but still only a few radio shows, and perhaps a larger role for shared institutions like churches & public schools?
> That's where the notion of a shared reality comes from.
Sure, but that reality was a top-down creation. How much airtime did dissidents get? Socialists? Women? Marginalised people? And I don't mean reporting on them, but stories by them.
Sure, but that reality was a top-down creation. How much airtime did dissidents get? Socialists? Women? Marginalised people? And I don't mean reporting on them, but stories by them.
I'm not sure this is your position, but one extreme is to describe this "shared reality" as being imposed by force on everyone by one privileged group.
But I'd like to highlight other forces. One was technological, 3 TV channels or whatever was all they could do, and this implied that there was going to be a pretty high degree of conformity. You couldn't broadcast weird Italian movies because only a few percent were interested. The 4 big car companies who bought the ads which paid the bills really didn't want to be associated with anything partisan, they all needed to sell to everyone.
Another was historical / emotional. The nation had just emerged from this gigantic world war, and it was a spectacular victory, which gave enormous prestige to the huge centralized machines built to fight it. They built a lot of similar machines back home, big corporations with a commander-in-chief who wasn't a self-made robber barron, he was promoted up the ranks. Big unions, and big regulation.
This experience also squashed a lot of earlier differences. You say "Women? Marginalised people?" but this seems like a modern take, I think they would have said "Irish? Polish? Jewish?". These earlier identities and divisions were eroding in favor of this shared one, I mean, a Catholic could be elected president, that was a big deal.
But all of these are gone now. So perhaps 100 years ago is a better guide than 50 years ago.
But I'd like to highlight other forces. One was technological, 3 TV channels or whatever was all they could do, and this implied that there was going to be a pretty high degree of conformity. You couldn't broadcast weird Italian movies because only a few percent were interested. The 4 big car companies who bought the ads which paid the bills really didn't want to be associated with anything partisan, they all needed to sell to everyone.
Another was historical / emotional. The nation had just emerged from this gigantic world war, and it was a spectacular victory, which gave enormous prestige to the huge centralized machines built to fight it. They built a lot of similar machines back home, big corporations with a commander-in-chief who wasn't a self-made robber barron, he was promoted up the ranks. Big unions, and big regulation.
This experience also squashed a lot of earlier differences. You say "Women? Marginalised people?" but this seems like a modern take, I think they would have said "Irish? Polish? Jewish?". These earlier identities and divisions were eroding in favor of this shared one, I mean, a Catholic could be elected president, that was a big deal.
But all of these are gone now. So perhaps 100 years ago is a better guide than 50 years ago.
Perhaps "creation" was too strong a word. So no, it wasn't so much being imposed as it was a natural (albeit unfortunate) consequence of technology, which you point out, and post-war sentiment, which you also point out! I agree with you, I'm just saying it wasn't a good thing. When there's so few voices, there's only so much they can say.
> These earlier identities and divisions were eroding in favor of this shared one
Shared by white people, for the most part.
I'm not sure what you mean in your penultimate paragraph. "identities and divisions eroding" is only partly true, surely. You could certainly argue the opposite is true - see the women's lib and civil rights movements for examples of people fighting back against conformity.
> These earlier identities and divisions were eroding in favor of this shared one
Shared by white people, for the most part.
I'm not sure what you mean in your penultimate paragraph. "identities and divisions eroding" is only partly true, surely. You could certainly argue the opposite is true - see the women's lib and civil rights movements for examples of people fighting back against conformity.
Note that I try not to say this consensus was either a good or a bad thing, only that it existed. It had pros & cons, and trying to weigh them up overall seems a bit of a distraction. I'm glad I don't live under it, although perhaps those who did were also glad not to live under earlier systems. But we don't get to choose when to be born, so we are not obliged to reach a yes/no vote.
Right, the experience of black people was pretty distinct, 20s-60s-now, and those are really interesting stories. And there's a fractal of smaller group stories, too. But I think the story arc from hyper-partisan 19th C news-politics to Walter Cronkite to Twitter can be understood (to a large degree) before zooming in that far. Although once you do, then indeed, the present tendency to focus on smaller groups' stories does look like part of the same Cronkite -> Twitter arc.
Right, the experience of black people was pretty distinct, 20s-60s-now, and those are really interesting stories. And there's a fractal of smaller group stories, too. But I think the story arc from hyper-partisan 19th C news-politics to Walter Cronkite to Twitter can be understood (to a large degree) before zooming in that far. Although once you do, then indeed, the present tendency to focus on smaller groups' stories does look like part of the same Cronkite -> Twitter arc.
> But we don't get to choose when to be born, so we are not obliged to reach a yes/no vote.
I wish more people thought this way. We think we're so smart!
In off to bed, but thank you for the reply, I understand more what you meant now.
I wish more people thought this way. We think we're so smart!
In off to bed, but thank you for the reply, I understand more what you meant now.
Don't forget the repealing of the fairness doctrine in 1987 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine)! People act like it's some big coincidence that polarized news really emerged in the US in the 90s....
> Over the last three decades, news organizations have traded in their neutrality and integrity for political and "narrative" influence.
No, they haven't. News organizations have always had strong political and narrative-driven tendencies, what has changed is that the media is more diverse in bias and thus the illusion of neutrality that came from the period where the major national media spoke with nearly uniform bias and agenda is lost.
No, they haven't. News organizations have always had strong political and narrative-driven tendencies, what has changed is that the media is more diverse in bias and thus the illusion of neutrality that came from the period where the major national media spoke with nearly uniform bias and agenda is lost.
When major news outlets take orders from the DNC on what to cover and what not to, that isn't the same as having ordinary bias.
When other outlets shill for the RNC, that isn't the same as having "political tendencies."
In the past, these maneuvers would have been considered conflicts of interest and a violation journalistic ethics. Today, we don't have many practicing journalists. We have "here's a lefty and here's a righty, let's watch 'em argue on screen" passed off as news.
When other outlets shill for the RNC, that isn't the same as having "political tendencies."
In the past, these maneuvers would have been considered conflicts of interest and a violation journalistic ethics. Today, we don't have many practicing journalists. We have "here's a lefty and here's a righty, let's watch 'em argue on screen" passed off as news.
Until the early 20th century, most newspapers were openly owned by political parties. And it was ad driven tabloids that ended that system, not strong examples of journalistic ethics. The strong connection between the two never vanished though, the media companies just got more powerful.
Strong disagree. During the tenure of GW Bush, I saw the mainstream media attack him daily in a way I had never witnessed before. It seemed to transform from debate to contempt and hate.
For second Bush.
News were posting. Daily death counts In Middle East.
The moment Obama was elected those counts stopped.
We all want to believe that nice guy on TV. Is honest and neutral.
This is almost never the case.
The moment Obama was elected those counts stopped.
We all want to believe that nice guy on TV. Is honest and neutral.
This is almost never the case.
Perhaps that was just fatigue coinciding with a new admin.
Notice how in the first few months of the pandemic the daily stats were front page? Like, every day and multiple times per day. Now we just occasionally get the "USA breaks single day record" second or third level heading with no specific numbers.
But, I promise you in 4 years people will be remember this as "Remember when the media was reporting the pandemic deaths non-stop when Trump was in office but it _suddenly_ stopped when Biden was in office?"
Just like people seem to remember when "Mitch Mcconnell" overrode Obama's veto. The veto both houses and both parties overrode. 97-1 in the senate.
Notice how in the first few months of the pandemic the daily stats were front page? Like, every day and multiple times per day. Now we just occasionally get the "USA breaks single day record" second or third level heading with no specific numbers.
But, I promise you in 4 years people will be remember this as "Remember when the media was reporting the pandemic deaths non-stop when Trump was in office but it _suddenly_ stopped when Biden was in office?"
Just like people seem to remember when "Mitch Mcconnell" overrode Obama's veto. The veto both houses and both parties overrode. 97-1 in the senate.
An easier explanation is that it isn't numbers fatigue but a pattern based on the party of the administration. This seems the easier explanation because the supposed audience "appetites" and "fatigues" reflected by editors seem to crest in a predictable way, surveys of industry participant political leanings, industry organization donations, evaluation of article messaging, recordings of CNN editorial meetings, etc.
I think the easiest explanation is fatigue. It requires no conspiracy as it just happens on its own; it set in like 6+ months ago on the pandemic.
Couple that with people remembering things how they want, or believing what they want to hear, and Bob is you uncle.
Couple that with people remembering things how they want, or believing what they want to hear, and Bob is you uncle.
Would that have anything to do with the disaster of the Iraq War, by any chance?
No. Reporting the news doesn't require weighing in or attacking anyone. Moreover, the "attacks" began well in advance of GW's inauguration never mind the Iraq War.
You haven't addressed why you think it was largely unjust criticism.
I don't think "News" should include criticism. There is a very important place for it along with news, but I think it is important to keep them as separate concepts. Honestly, right now what is presented as mainstream "news" is probably best described as entertainment.
What should "News" consist of?
What has happened. Is this really that hard of concept?
I'll admit I was baiting you a bit there - I apologise. I was running out the door and didn't want to forget.
The thing about "what has happened" is that it actually leaves a lot of room for bad faith reporting. You can never include everything. What isn't reported is just as important as what is, whether it's whole stories, certain viewpoints, context, anything.
What criticisms did mainstream news outlets level at George W. Bush that you felt were attacks? At what point in the lead-up to lies-based invasion do you feel it's ok to say "Bush and Cheney just might be lying here, folks."?
The thing about "what has happened" is that it actually leaves a lot of room for bad faith reporting. You can never include everything. What isn't reported is just as important as what is, whether it's whole stories, certain viewpoints, context, anything.
What criticisms did mainstream news outlets level at George W. Bush that you felt were attacks? At what point in the lead-up to lies-based invasion do you feel it's ok to say "Bush and Cheney just might be lying here, folks."?
The facts of the war in Iraq were objectively bad. Should the media have hidden this to avoid accusations of bias? The problem is that the same critical coverage did not continue for Obama. Keep in mind too that all major outlets cheered the lead-up and start of the war - it's a big money spinner after all.
The facts of the war in Iraq were objectively bad. Should the media have hidden this to avoid accusations of bias?
[deleted]
Perhaps because it was deserved? If the leader of the world insists on taking abhorrent actions, what's the neutral position?
[deleted]
A root cause behind this is a shift from news as a public service (something closer to the modern-day BBC) to an info-tainment business that must turn a quarterly profit.
> There are no more Walter Cronkites or Edward R. Murrows
I don't think there can be economically, without regulating (supply limiting) news media.
They were debatably on par with politicians. But increase the number of news outlets, and the importance of any anchor decreases.
Consequently, their ability to ask hard questions without losing access to their sources decreases.
I don't think there can be economically, without regulating (supply limiting) news media.
They were debatably on par with politicians. But increase the number of news outlets, and the importance of any anchor decreases.
Consequently, their ability to ask hard questions without losing access to their sources decreases.
Fox News was specifically designed and built to be the media arm of the Republican party. This was by design, created from the ground up as a long term play. In its case, it was not a natural shift of narrative influence or a trade-in for the viewer numbers.
Rupert Murdock called on Republican political strategist Roger Ailes in 1996 when creating Fox News. Ailes launched and then ran Fox News as its CEO for decades.
This is the same guy who worked as a media adviser to basically every successful Republican presidential campaign.. Nixon, Reagan, Bush.. and even Trump (before Ailes died, and after a sexual misconduct scandal finally got him canned at Fox).
Ailes was so influential as a strategist that he was even credited for one of Bush senior's wins back in the day. And he built and reigned at Fox News for 20+ years.
So we had a major republican political operator put in charge of a news network by a global political operator (Murdoch) who only got US citizenship as it was a requirement for US television station ownership. And who had a history of using his media empire to shape political narrative for influence.
The frustrating thing is that Murdoch's influence shaping has always been more about accumulating power than towards spreading specific ideology. In Australia in the 60s and 70s, he backed the faction pushing for universal free health care, free college education for all Australians, and public ownership of Australia's oil, gas and mineral resources.
Sounds very un-Fox-like, doesn't it? It was the in-road to political power, the faction that would get him the most influence by supporting. There was a write-up some years ago in the UK that delves a bit more into his history (as he has also been peddling influence in the UK for decades as well):
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/a-man-of-selfish-lo...
But tying this back to Fox News.. he came to the US, built a TV network and used that foundation to build a news station. This was a push to become a major political controller by building and embedding Fox News as the media arm of the Republican party.
They used this to condition their base. The lead-up to today is decades of people turning on FOX to watch Geraldo, sticking around for the news, then wandering off with talking points stuffed into their heads by influencers with an agenda who were presenting the news.
And the strategy was so successful that it generates mimics to the model. The most evil I see is Sinclair Media buying up local news stations and putting the same talking points into the mouths of local pundits across the nation. There's a creepy video compilation that highlights the tactics of this influence machinery by showing clips from each of these local news outlets with different talking heads each repeating the same points.
Rupert Murdock called on Republican political strategist Roger Ailes in 1996 when creating Fox News. Ailes launched and then ran Fox News as its CEO for decades.
This is the same guy who worked as a media adviser to basically every successful Republican presidential campaign.. Nixon, Reagan, Bush.. and even Trump (before Ailes died, and after a sexual misconduct scandal finally got him canned at Fox).
Ailes was so influential as a strategist that he was even credited for one of Bush senior's wins back in the day. And he built and reigned at Fox News for 20+ years.
So we had a major republican political operator put in charge of a news network by a global political operator (Murdoch) who only got US citizenship as it was a requirement for US television station ownership. And who had a history of using his media empire to shape political narrative for influence.
The frustrating thing is that Murdoch's influence shaping has always been more about accumulating power than towards spreading specific ideology. In Australia in the 60s and 70s, he backed the faction pushing for universal free health care, free college education for all Australians, and public ownership of Australia's oil, gas and mineral resources.
Sounds very un-Fox-like, doesn't it? It was the in-road to political power, the faction that would get him the most influence by supporting. There was a write-up some years ago in the UK that delves a bit more into his history (as he has also been peddling influence in the UK for decades as well):
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/a-man-of-selfish-lo...
But tying this back to Fox News.. he came to the US, built a TV network and used that foundation to build a news station. This was a push to become a major political controller by building and embedding Fox News as the media arm of the Republican party.
They used this to condition their base. The lead-up to today is decades of people turning on FOX to watch Geraldo, sticking around for the news, then wandering off with talking points stuffed into their heads by influencers with an agenda who were presenting the news.
And the strategy was so successful that it generates mimics to the model. The most evil I see is Sinclair Media buying up local news stations and putting the same talking points into the mouths of local pundits across the nation. There's a creepy video compilation that highlights the tactics of this influence machinery by showing clips from each of these local news outlets with different talking heads each repeating the same points.
I completely agree. To be a bit more explicit, the extent to which institutions abandon objectivity is the extent to which we lose an agreed upon set of facts. It's really tragic that the hard-earned credibility of these institutions are being hollowed out for relatively little short-term political capital to the great detriment of our whole country and indeed the world.
I cannot believe someone would look at the current situation and think to themselves "they decided to do this because they weren't allowed to offend people on college campuses." If anything the current situation is caused by a lack of moderation and instead giving absolutely everyone the same level of authority and deference online, regardless of whether they deserve it. Every bozo gets their own twitter and substack and people follow it if they want to, and it leads to delusional and violent people finding leaders to follow. 20 years ago these people would have had much less opportunity to speak and reach followers, not more, and things were better then.
20 years ago we started an un-ending war in the Mideast that stemmed from a lack of critical evaluation of what the intelligence community was telling us. For you to say things were better then.. for whom? And even if I were to agree with you I'm not sure it's appropriate to lay the blame at the feet of information technology. Social and cultural evolution happens (has happened) without mass adoption of the Internet.
> 20 years ago we started an un-ending war in the Mideast
Or, given the conflict starting from the first Gulf War and continuing up until the second, maybe 30 years ago.
Or, given the US deep involvement in the immediately preceding Iran-Iraq war, maybe closer to 40 years ago.
Or...
Or, given the conflict starting from the first Gulf War and continuing up until the second, maybe 30 years ago.
Or, given the US deep involvement in the immediately preceding Iran-Iraq war, maybe closer to 40 years ago.
Or...
[deleted]
> 20 years ago these people would have had much less opportunity to speak and reach followers, not more, and things were better then.
20 years ago was the disputed 2000 election, 9/11, Department of Homeland Security, Gitmo, invasion of Afghanistan, lies about WMD, invasion of Iraq, etc. So no, I wouldn't say things were better then.
20 years ago was the disputed 2000 election, 9/11, Department of Homeland Security, Gitmo, invasion of Afghanistan, lies about WMD, invasion of Iraq, etc. So no, I wouldn't say things were better then.
It’s truly amazing how quickly people forget.
Reminds me of the rapid increase in housing prices now and concerns about a bubble. I mean, 8-9 years ago it was non-stop articles about how nobody would be fooled again by a housing bubble.
Reminds me of the rapid increase in housing prices now and concerns about a bubble. I mean, 8-9 years ago it was non-stop articles about how nobody would be fooled again by a housing bubble.
Respectfully, this is wrong. I’m afraid you are artificially constraining the argument to symptoms, not a cause.
We’ve seen headlines on this site showing how we have access to more kinds of information than ever.
Society HAD been pressured to toe the line even harder back in the day. Internet has no TV censors, though the most visible properties do.
It’s ridiculous to suggest we’ve become more protective given book burnings, anti-Dungeons and Dragons, anti-comic book, Bible thumping paranoia that used to exist.
What we’re seeing is American incompetence to comprehend more than just their speech is wrong. Their entire agency is wrong.
When political forces beat us over the head with economic correctness, which has lead to decades of growing inequality, and the Fed relied on a policy of worker insecurity to keep people in their jobs, this has little to do with Main Street tolerance for alternative ideas (they’re everywhere) and everything to do with tried and true human nature to maintain economic power in the hands of a minority.
Humans evolved quite a bit before language. What is language anyway except muscle agency emitting random sound forms? Then of course we normalize on them, effectively constraining our syntax systems organically. Even linguists agree.
This has little to do with suppression of speech and everything to do with top down control of productive agency altogether.
The undermining of agency for the masses, sequestered in the hands of a minority has nothing to do with speech. We say a lot of diverse shit. But spend our time securing the wealth of oligarchs.
We’ve seen headlines on this site showing how we have access to more kinds of information than ever.
Society HAD been pressured to toe the line even harder back in the day. Internet has no TV censors, though the most visible properties do.
It’s ridiculous to suggest we’ve become more protective given book burnings, anti-Dungeons and Dragons, anti-comic book, Bible thumping paranoia that used to exist.
What we’re seeing is American incompetence to comprehend more than just their speech is wrong. Their entire agency is wrong.
When political forces beat us over the head with economic correctness, which has lead to decades of growing inequality, and the Fed relied on a policy of worker insecurity to keep people in their jobs, this has little to do with Main Street tolerance for alternative ideas (they’re everywhere) and everything to do with tried and true human nature to maintain economic power in the hands of a minority.
Humans evolved quite a bit before language. What is language anyway except muscle agency emitting random sound forms? Then of course we normalize on them, effectively constraining our syntax systems organically. Even linguists agree.
This has little to do with suppression of speech and everything to do with top down control of productive agency altogether.
The undermining of agency for the masses, sequestered in the hands of a minority has nothing to do with speech. We say a lot of diverse shit. But spend our time securing the wealth of oligarchs.
That all sounds plausible, but I am skeptical that today is significantly different from other historical periods or nations that had/have similar tribalism. Look back far enough and you'll find rich stories of senators murdering each other. Sure, ancient Roman history, but relevant today. Many societies of the past have had our same divisions.
Rather than making conjectures about why today is different, it might be more helpful to investigate why some time periods weren't rife with tribalism.
Rather than making conjectures about why today is different, it might be more helpful to investigate why some time periods weren't rife with tribalism.
You don't need to go that far back in the mid 1800's one Senator beat another Senator almost to death on the Senate floor.
Anecdotes (US History) are useful for building hypotheses, but I like statistical evidence for testing those theories. Unfortunately, our best source of democracy data (Rome, at least 52 Greek city-states, Greek leagues, etc.) may be 2k years old. Obviously, we don't know much about the media of the day, so it'll be hard to test some of the modern social media theories. Maybe we could compare the behavior of different municipalities.
The tribalism part is easy: prosperity. Just like a fed snake is calm, so an extremely prosperous society is peaceful.
A simple example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotive_industry#/media/Fil...
In 1950 the US produced 80% of the world's cars. Similar story for appliances and many other products. That wasn't a normal state. So slowly it went down.
So the US is slowly reversing to its mean. Remember, robber barons, the Great Depression, the New Deal.
A simple example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotive_industry#/media/Fil...
In 1950 the US produced 80% of the world's cars. Similar story for appliances and many other products. That wasn't a normal state. So slowly it went down.
So the US is slowly reversing to its mean. Remember, robber barons, the Great Depression, the New Deal.
>hurting our iddly-widdly-fweelings
This is irrational and hostile. Regardless, what's unfolding is not a result of people more frequently experiencing normal social reactions to their public statements and actions, nor a result of the exceptional and justly criticized cases where those reactions are based on error. That line of criticism is usually just a dishonest way to excuse other behaviors, like we are witnessing here, that are dangerous to society and poisonous to discourse.
This is irrational and hostile. Regardless, what's unfolding is not a result of people more frequently experiencing normal social reactions to their public statements and actions, nor a result of the exceptional and justly criticized cases where those reactions are based on error. That line of criticism is usually just a dishonest way to excuse other behaviors, like we are witnessing here, that are dangerous to society and poisonous to discourse.
The practical power of "that's offensive" is so much stronger than "we should allow free speech". I'd love for a better and more succint method of conveying the threat that putting "offensiveness" on a pedestal puts to science and democracy. Do you have one?
It needs to be made clear that the path of progress is littered with hurt feelings, and that the importance of our feelings is significantly dwarfed by the collective good of science and democracy.
It needs to be made clear that the path of progress is littered with hurt feelings, and that the importance of our feelings is significantly dwarfed by the collective good of science and democracy.
Your whole post here could be applied to the folks storming the capitol with equal ease as it could be applied to the stereotypical "triggered" university student.
So it doesn't seem to have much explanatory power as to how we got to the point where the President is inciting those rioters... the President is literally telling them to be offended, and to be angry. Speech promoting violence. How is that speech not itself a threat to democracy?
So it doesn't seem to have much explanatory power as to how we got to the point where the President is inciting those rioters... the President is literally telling them to be offended, and to be angry. Speech promoting violence. How is that speech not itself a threat to democracy?
The supreme court has ruled that speech presenting "imminent public danger" is not protected (i.e. free) speech.
Aren't you inadvertently proving their point here?
The fact that it applies to both perhaps suggests validity, no?
The fact that it applies to both perhaps suggests validity, no?
But we don't see an anti-Trump politician encouraging a set of counter-insurrectionists... so we're looking for what's DIFFERENT about the Trump side here, not something that applies everywhere.
It needs to be made clear that the path of
progress is littered with hurt feelings, and
that the importance of our feelings is
significantly dwarfed by the collective
good of science and democracy.
The human race is not a zero-sum game with "feelings" on one side and "progress" on the other!
Don't lose sight of why we're making all of this progress in the first place.
We are not building more highways and inventing more computers just for the heck of it. We are -- or should be -- doing it to improve the happiness of ourselves and those who come after us.
Y'know, happiness? One of those pesky feelings you mentioned?
He did not present a dichotomy. He said one is more important than the other, and that is correct.
We used to teach our children to "have a thick skin." "Sticks and stones will break my bones, but words can never hurt me." When someone took offense we told them to "grow up."
Being offended, especially on behalf of someone else, is useless. Teach people not to take offense. They'll be happier.
We used to teach our children to "have a thick skin." "Sticks and stones will break my bones, but words can never hurt me." When someone took offense we told them to "grow up."
Being offended, especially on behalf of someone else, is useless. Teach people not to take offense. They'll be happier.
Buy that saying is lie. It is simply not true. It is just something said to kids when adults don't want to deal with situation. It is good for adults to say that, because then they can continue to watch tv unbothered.
Words to affect people and if you don't respond to insult, you will be bullied and insulted more and more. You will not have respect and you will lose ability to influence what is going on with and around you.
In addition, men used to hold duels over words, so it was not even historical standards.
> When someone took offense we told them to "grow up."
Yes, some adults were enabling bullies like that. Especially if they themselves did not like the target. But it still was exactly that - enabling.
Just letting it go or being submissive is not functional strategy to deal with these issues.
Words to affect people and if you don't respond to insult, you will be bullied and insulted more and more. You will not have respect and you will lose ability to influence what is going on with and around you.
In addition, men used to hold duels over words, so it was not even historical standards.
> When someone took offense we told them to "grow up."
Yes, some adults were enabling bullies like that. Especially if they themselves did not like the target. But it still was exactly that - enabling.
Just letting it go or being submissive is not functional strategy to deal with these issues.
Teach people not to take offense. They'll be happier.
Yes - this notion is the actual thing that is becoming lost to many in our culture over time. People constantly excuse each other for being pointless assholes by lamenting that the 3rd party is just too sensitive, which can certainly be true, but usually the 3rd party is just reacting like any emotionally normal person, and may or may not have "thick skin", which is an independent quality.
We also teach children (still, I hope?) to not say anything if you don't have anything nice to say, and to walk a mile in someone's shoes before judging them, and to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. So yes, teach people not to take offense, and also teach people not to be offensive. Being offended on someone else behalf helped us get rid of slavery, helped end the holocaust, gave us many of our social programs that support the poor - it's not wrong to see injustice and call it out, even if it's not happening to you.
Would you really rather live a pleasing fiction than face a sad or uncomfortable reality? Would you be okay if we just pumped you up on some concoction or other and called it a day of it caused you to be happier?
Sorry, what? Nothing I said had anything to do with denying reality, achieving happiness at all costs, or anything like that. I'm certainly not in favor of that.
I am expressing my belief that progress and happiness pair pretty well -- they should not be at odds with each other.
In addition to earning a living, it's why I got into this industry. Is that not why most of us are here? Aren't we here to write code that makes things better for people? Perhaps not on world changing levels, but hopefully on some level even if it's just making the file upload box on some fourth-rate social media site a little easier to use?
I am expressing my belief that progress and happiness pair pretty well -- they should not be at odds with each other.
In addition to earning a living, it's why I got into this industry. Is that not why most of us are here? Aren't we here to write code that makes things better for people? Perhaps not on world changing levels, but hopefully on some level even if it's just making the file upload box on some fourth-rate social media site a little easier to use?
>Would you really rather live a pleasing fiction than face a sad or uncomfortable reality
This is never said or implied.
This is never said or implied.
Except not everyone has the same type of happiness. This is why the declaration of independence does not say "life, liberty, and happiness", it says "life, liberty, and _the_ _pursuit_ _of_ happiness". There's an implied statement there that not everyone, or even most will be happy, but we should be free to be able to seek what makes us happy. You don't have a right to happiness, but you have a right to be able to try to make yourself happy.
> This is irrational and hostile.
The way I interpret this argument is this: the world wasn't meant to be pleasing all the time. Excluding unpleasant facts from one's information diet because it hurts their feelings is what the OP is arguing against. It is absolutely possible to present hostile/offensive statements that are also true. Feel free to agree/disagree, but it's quite rational line of thinking.
The way I interpret this argument is this: the world wasn't meant to be pleasing all the time. Excluding unpleasant facts from one's information diet because it hurts their feelings is what the OP is arguing against. It is absolutely possible to present hostile/offensive statements that are also true. Feel free to agree/disagree, but it's quite rational line of thinking.
DC is filled with a violent mob that feels uncomfortable with the truth that Trump lost. They are lashing out because they do not have the emotional fortitude to deal with their hurt feelings.
Getting angry when a stranger makes a statement that you disagree with is not a normal social reaction, or at least it wasn't until recently. The possibility of error is just one reason that it shouldn't be.
Yes it is. Heck if you look in the history books there are plenty of examples of people not just being criticized but actually being murdered over the statements they make. Which statements draw social ire may change over time, but you can't seriously be suggesting that until recently nobody got offended ever.
People used to fight duels.
> 2. Having access to a diverse information diet
I am fully for it, but I believe the ones who need to change the informational diet are not ones who you think they need.
If today's events make any surprise to HN readers. I will tell them they spent not last 4 years, but like 20 years under a rock, and have no idea whatsoever what moves the political pendulum to the right with such force. And they don't want to hear why it is so.
Here on HN, 3 years ago I said that US is inching ever closer to the second civil war, and the point of no returns gets gets more, and more visible.
Then, I was told that such talks are not welcome on HN, and it's below the esteemed patrons of our establishment to think of such lowly matters.
Voila, sealed ears, what they lead to. Not only on HN, but across the elites of entire Western world.
I am fully for it, but I believe the ones who need to change the informational diet are not ones who you think they need.
If today's events make any surprise to HN readers. I will tell them they spent not last 4 years, but like 20 years under a rock, and have no idea whatsoever what moves the political pendulum to the right with such force. And they don't want to hear why it is so.
Here on HN, 3 years ago I said that US is inching ever closer to the second civil war, and the point of no returns gets gets more, and more visible.
Then, I was told that such talks are not welcome on HN, and it's below the esteemed patrons of our establishment to think of such lowly matters.
Voila, sealed ears, what they lead to. Not only on HN, but across the elites of entire Western world.
The last U.S. civil war had the politicians from the southern states seceding.
Is that what you were predicting 3 years ago, still predicting?
Because all I see are rioting by people who have lost any upward mobility they might have once had.
They'll be burning Teslas next but that doesn't make it a civil war.
Is that what you were predicting 3 years ago, still predicting?
Because all I see are rioting by people who have lost any upward mobility they might have once had.
They'll be burning Teslas next but that doesn't make it a civil war.
You had rioting people who lost any upward mobility at exactly the same time the sitting Vice President and Congress were explicitly voting on the certification of the result of the election. They were backed by 150+ Politicians who were going to refuse to certify their results. These rioting people then committed several felonies of much greater legal concern than anything in the BLM protests and subsequent rioting.
> These rioting people then committed several felonies of much greater legal concern than anything in the BLM protests and subsequent rioting.
Come again? The BLM riots went on for months, multiple people died, a section of a major city was occupied for weeks (two people murdered by the self appointed security force), a police precinct was burned down (as well as many building in several cities), etc. And you’re talking about the the grave felonies involved in a single day of occupying a public building...
Come again? The BLM riots went on for months, multiple people died, a section of a major city was occupied for weeks (two people murdered by the self appointed security force), a police precinct was burned down (as well as many building in several cities), etc. And you’re talking about the the grave felonies involved in a single day of occupying a public building...
You are downplaying this event which is natural considering it's literally the worst look possible but the reality of the BLM protests in DC which turned violent is in no way comparable to what we've seen today in broad daylight. You want to rush the capitol building with a mob during the certification of our next sitting President? This isn't a gas station in Wisconsin. It isn't a sound idea regardless of your politics. I'm honestly surprised they weren't squashed by police sooner.
To the downvoters... tell me where I’m wrong. The reaction to what I’ve said kind of highlights the “two groups living in separate realities” discussion here. There is much pearl clutching today about occupation of a public building, somehow placing the mayhem caused on a level far above months of rioting, looting, and dead bodies.
> Because all I see are rioting by people who have lost any upward mobility they might have once had.
Isn't this what ultimately fuels all civil wars?
Isn't this what ultimately fuels all civil wars?
> Is that what you were predicting 3 years ago, still predicting?
What is the biggest social crisis there now, for every opportunistic force to take advantage off?
One need to be very, very blind not to see it coming, especially living in a major US city.
What is the biggest social crisis there now, for every opportunistic force to take advantage off?
One need to be very, very blind not to see it coming, especially living in a major US city.
I still don't see how you are connecting the dots. A lot more needs to be in place for civil war.
Pretty sure the monied interests have no desire for civil war — the opposite was the case in the mid 19th Century.
Pretty sure the monied interests have no desire for civil war — the opposite was the case in the mid 19th Century.
> A lot more needs to be in place for civil war.
True, really a lot. In needs a nation on the edge for it to decide to turn on itself. And a nation on the edge it is.
> Pretty sure the monied interests have no desire for civil war — the opposite was the case in the mid 19th Century.
And so thought monied interests of the Old World when a wave of civil wars sped through the continent, and the Spring of Nations happened after few decades of turmoil.
And historians err here, taking desirable, for believable. "The Two Terrible Decades," aren't called that for nothing. They were devastating for both of Europe's Old, and New Money. It were the same upper classes socialites who wrote the term in the history books after all.
True, really a lot. In needs a nation on the edge for it to decide to turn on itself. And a nation on the edge it is.
> Pretty sure the monied interests have no desire for civil war — the opposite was the case in the mid 19th Century.
And so thought monied interests of the Old World when a wave of civil wars sped through the continent, and the Spring of Nations happened after few decades of turmoil.
And historians err here, taking desirable, for believable. "The Two Terrible Decades," aren't called that for nothing. They were devastating for both of Europe's Old, and New Money. It were the same upper classes socialites who wrote the term in the history books after all.
> In needs a nation on the edge for it to decide to turn on itself
It would help if there were some geographical lines, as well. Are you envisioning the next civil war will be simultaneous sieges of all the major cities in the US?
It would help if there were some geographical lines, as well. Are you envisioning the next civil war will be simultaneous sieges of all the major cities in the US?
Are you envisioning the next civil war will be simultaneous sieges of all the major cities in the US?
No, most likely the same North-South split, with a bit of interior, vs exterior element to it.
No, most likely the same North-South split, with a bit of interior, vs exterior element to it.
That seems implausible. Slavery is no longer the overt separation between the areas. Democrats in Atlanta agree with Democrats in Portland far more than they agree with Republicans in rural Georgia. There's no basis for a civil war. Revolution is the closest we'd get, but neither side has anywhere near enough power to suppress the entirety of the other.
Plus, when the shit hits the fan, the reasonable among us seem to suddenly conclude maybe we don't really care to fight about this. Yesterday is a classic example. These folks at the capitol like to think they were going to start the war and everyone else would join in. What really happens, of course, is that they find out how limited their numbers are, and that regular people will simply direct the police to squash the insurrection.
Plus, when the shit hits the fan, the reasonable among us seem to suddenly conclude maybe we don't really care to fight about this. Yesterday is a classic example. These folks at the capitol like to think they were going to start the war and everyone else would join in. What really happens, of course, is that they find out how limited their numbers are, and that regular people will simply direct the police to squash the insurrection.
American socio-economic divide is very much geographical, unless the only poor people you know are urban homeless.
And this divide lines uncannily along the lines from centuries ago.
And this divide lines uncannily along the lines from centuries ago.
Gun control or land use causing inequality and social calcification?
They're gonna have to link up with the left to go burning teslas, but instead they'll fight the other people without upward mobility.
But you can’t listen to them now. Any underlying reasonable argument, policy or beliefs are now turned into monsters after they’ve turned all their opposition into monsters. They’ve become everything they claim to be protecting against. They must be fought before they can be heard.
Corollary to #1: Being willing to understand that two conflicting views on the same topic doesn't mean one of them has to be wrong
And sometimes they are both misleading.
I used to think if I read through media with opposing biases then I'd understand the real story. But in most cases there's just a huge amount of relevant context missing even if the articles are factually correct.
In the same way that you can present statistical data in a way to support a view when the data doesn't actually support it despite being factually accurate.
I used to think if I read through media with opposing biases then I'd understand the real story. But in most cases there's just a huge amount of relevant context missing even if the articles are factually correct.
In the same way that you can present statistical data in a way to support a view when the data doesn't actually support it despite being factually accurate.
It's kind of like this meme with two people seeing a number, one saying 6 and other saying 9 - except in reality it's neither; it's a piece of a shadow of a large pretzel. Real-life issues are complex, multidimensional beasts. Disagreement between honest people often comes from them not realizing that what they know and believe is a projection, a dimensionality reduction. Same is with the news - they usually offer what amounts to projecting a 42-dimensional object into two or one dimensions.
> Although restricting offensive speech has the upfront benefit of not hurting our iddly-widdly-fweelings, this is the price we pay for abandoning free speech.
Given that lies about the election, protected by free speech, have stoked these riots maybe you should consider whether it's really a problem of not enough free speech.
Given that lies about the election, protected by free speech, have stoked these riots maybe you should consider whether it's really a problem of not enough free speech.
I’m really glad to see this as the top comment: I think your analysis is spot on.
Anecdotally I’ve been reading a lot of old news (60s-90s) and it’s amazing to read as a retrospective. It has given me context for how we arrived to present day and it’s funny to see some of the same social phenomenons repeating themselves.
Anecdotally I’ve been reading a lot of old news (60s-90s) and it’s amazing to read as a retrospective. It has given me context for how we arrived to present day and it’s funny to see some of the same social phenomenons repeating themselves.
Same, I'd highly recommend Hayek's Road to Serfdom and Constitution of Liberty if you haven't read it already, along with Cato's letters and the the Federalist papers. It's honestly amazing and depressing how accurate they were but I suppose human nature is timeless.
In a race to get better test scores schools stopped implicitly teaching critical thought. Its easier to teach kids how to follow a set of steps to achieve a goal (math equations) rather then teach them the logic behind the steps such that they can independently come up with those same steps on their own. Yet the latter increases critical thought miles more.
In middle school I had a week long course on how to identify the trustworthiness of online sources that talked over topics like what does the site gain by pushing one narrative over another, are they selling anything that might make them artificially favor a view point over another, checking multiple sources but identifying common trends in arguments or even common site themes that might suggest the sites are ran by the same entity.
In highschool in another district all I got on the topic was "wikipedia bad because it can be edited by anyone".
In middle school I had a week long course on how to identify the trustworthiness of online sources that talked over topics like what does the site gain by pushing one narrative over another, are they selling anything that might make them artificially favor a view point over another, checking multiple sources but identifying common trends in arguments or even common site themes that might suggest the sites are ran by the same entity.
In highschool in another district all I got on the topic was "wikipedia bad because it can be edited by anyone".
And all of us in quieter nations, who have been laughed at for not having "real" free speech, are wondering what you are on about...
I don't. A civil war in US is no laughing matter. US has nukes.
This matters both because some could end up being used if the country ignites, and also because US serves as the linchpin of the MAD doctrine, which kept the world relatively stable for over a half century now. US becoming unable to credibly deter other nuclear nations would probably not cause a nuclear war, but would definitely leave space for other big powers to make big changes in the geopolitical landscape.
This matters both because some could end up being used if the country ignites, and also because US serves as the linchpin of the MAD doctrine, which kept the world relatively stable for over a half century now. US becoming unable to credibly deter other nuclear nations would probably not cause a nuclear war, but would definitely leave space for other big powers to make big changes in the geopolitical landscape.
Wouldn't the points you make also describe the limitations of free speech in society at any point prior to, say, 1980? Except in that case they would be limitations imposed by the lack of technology.
It's the practical erosion of Free Speech
Or at least it is, in a woefully undereducated country with large segments of the population that reject science and value ignorance.
Careful, vetted, fact-based reporting is incredibly laborious.
It takes orders of magnitude more time, money, and effort than it takes your uncle Steve to fire off a group text message with a bunch of conspiracy theories or share his anti-vax opinions in yet another wonderfully insightful all-caps Facebook screed. And yet, they are treated with the same level of respect in a country like this.
Further restriction of free speech at the government level is not the answer. That would be even worse than what we have now.
The problem is, there is no answer. This is simply where our values and our ignorance has taken us.
" this is the price we pay for abandoning free speech."
This is completely upside down.
This is not the 'erosion of free speech' - it's actually the 'explosion' of it.
Free from any kind of filters of credibility, people can now promote whatever fictions they want to promote.
When fictions are emboldened by those in positions of legitimate authority, aka The President, the truth falls by the side.
The ratio of 'noise to truth' has blown up, and it's mostly a result of our ability to communicate in a more direct manner.
The voices of mostly uninformed individuals, free to express themselves on the soap box, are now much louder. That's not a slight: we're all busy and have different roles in life. We can't be experts in everything, ergo, most of us are not legitimate sources of truth on that much. We allocate those responsibilities to people within whom we entrust a certain degree of trust. Like the free press as one example, Science as another.
Far from 'restrictions' on speech, the internet itself, Facebook, Twitter - whatever their policies provide for 100x more communication than existed before.
We used to get information from news, politicians, bureaucrats, teachers - and some gossip from the neighbours. Now the 'gossip, youtube and TikTok information' factor is 10x greater - and that's mostly a function of free expression.
Random people on Facebook will 'like' and 'propagate' whatever 'science' they want to believe is true - which is obviously not going to result in rigorously verified information, rather the opposite.
'Good or Bad?' - that's a more complicated issue - but what we are seeing now is 'much more expression' not 'limited expression'.
I challenge anyone here to demonstrate, over the last 25 years, how there could possibly be fewer channels and sources of public information and expression.
Edit: I should add that obviously there are issues with freedom of expression, on campus, and the in the commons with certain forms of shaming for certain opinions, but that's an entirely different issue from 'public information' and 'how people are misinformed' about things like election results. The public commons is several orders of magnitude bigger than it ever was. It's not even comparable to 25 years ago, this is a completely different era we live in.
This is completely upside down.
This is not the 'erosion of free speech' - it's actually the 'explosion' of it.
Free from any kind of filters of credibility, people can now promote whatever fictions they want to promote.
When fictions are emboldened by those in positions of legitimate authority, aka The President, the truth falls by the side.
The ratio of 'noise to truth' has blown up, and it's mostly a result of our ability to communicate in a more direct manner.
The voices of mostly uninformed individuals, free to express themselves on the soap box, are now much louder. That's not a slight: we're all busy and have different roles in life. We can't be experts in everything, ergo, most of us are not legitimate sources of truth on that much. We allocate those responsibilities to people within whom we entrust a certain degree of trust. Like the free press as one example, Science as another.
Far from 'restrictions' on speech, the internet itself, Facebook, Twitter - whatever their policies provide for 100x more communication than existed before.
We used to get information from news, politicians, bureaucrats, teachers - and some gossip from the neighbours. Now the 'gossip, youtube and TikTok information' factor is 10x greater - and that's mostly a function of free expression.
Random people on Facebook will 'like' and 'propagate' whatever 'science' they want to believe is true - which is obviously not going to result in rigorously verified information, rather the opposite.
'Good or Bad?' - that's a more complicated issue - but what we are seeing now is 'much more expression' not 'limited expression'.
I challenge anyone here to demonstrate, over the last 25 years, how there could possibly be fewer channels and sources of public information and expression.
Edit: I should add that obviously there are issues with freedom of expression, on campus, and the in the commons with certain forms of shaming for certain opinions, but that's an entirely different issue from 'public information' and 'how people are misinformed' about things like election results. The public commons is several orders of magnitude bigger than it ever was. It's not even comparable to 25 years ago, this is a completely different era we live in.
Can’t believe I had to scroll so far to find a comment like this. This is absolutely nothing to do with a limit on free speech but a failing of education and the explosion of free speech on social media.
To be flippant, there are more village idiots than ever before and they are all talking to each other on the internet.
The solution to this, in my opinion, is a massive investment in public education and a shift of American politics to the left. America doesn’t have a left and a right, it has a far right and a right. In the UK American democrats would be very comfortable in the UK Conservative party.
To be flippant, there are more village idiots than ever before and they are all talking to each other on the internet.
The solution to this, in my opinion, is a massive investment in public education and a shift of American politics to the left. America doesn’t have a left and a right, it has a far right and a right. In the UK American democrats would be very comfortable in the UK Conservative party.
'Free Speech' is one of the HN 'trigger' issues, so there won't be any actual discussion of the issue here, sadly.
To wit a top comment is talking about 'suppressed speech' when we have 100x more avenues to speak and express ourselves, and more people have voices than ever before, by several orders of magnitude ... is evidence of that is abundant.
YouTube, Twitter, TikTok, Blogs, the fact we can now access information from around the world, the readiness 24/7 nature of information, any book, from anywhere, people from around the world interacting on Facebook.
Only 25 years ago it was literally unthinkable - I was alive then and nobody was predicting this. If you wanted to learn about 'Russia' you went to the 'Library'. Now - you can read Russian News, videos, TikToks, Instas, communicate with Russians, heck - you can even work with them.
HackerNews itself is an amazing opportunity for information clearing and individual expression that did not exist in any form 25 years ago! The very comment you are writing is 'revolutionary' in the broader picture of time. There was nowhere to do this before. Nobody could interact with people from around the world about 'daily tech news'.
It's not even a debate how much more expression there is today.
To your point about 'education' - obviously that would be wonderful, but that's not going to be good enough.
Just look at the issue here: we have incredibly more power as individuals to express ourselves publicly - and a 'very educated' HN board can't seem to grasp that.
We're just starting to grasp the power and influence of Social Media - and now that Trump has shown 'what can be done', I'm afraid it will be an 'arms race' of misinformation for a while.
Our system depends on integrity: that your doctors is certified, professional, moral. Same for your teacher. The Judge. And the same applies to information. We 'fact check' books, reports. We certainly expect that in the Scientific domain. So we must have that for public information as well. Which is not to say we won't have other expressive channels, but randoms on 'TikTok' just can't be a source of news, other than the experience they might be able to grab on their phones (which FYI can be enlightening).
So yes, education, but we need credibility in our institutions as well.
To wit a top comment is talking about 'suppressed speech' when we have 100x more avenues to speak and express ourselves, and more people have voices than ever before, by several orders of magnitude ... is evidence of that is abundant.
YouTube, Twitter, TikTok, Blogs, the fact we can now access information from around the world, the readiness 24/7 nature of information, any book, from anywhere, people from around the world interacting on Facebook.
Only 25 years ago it was literally unthinkable - I was alive then and nobody was predicting this. If you wanted to learn about 'Russia' you went to the 'Library'. Now - you can read Russian News, videos, TikToks, Instas, communicate with Russians, heck - you can even work with them.
HackerNews itself is an amazing opportunity for information clearing and individual expression that did not exist in any form 25 years ago! The very comment you are writing is 'revolutionary' in the broader picture of time. There was nowhere to do this before. Nobody could interact with people from around the world about 'daily tech news'.
It's not even a debate how much more expression there is today.
To your point about 'education' - obviously that would be wonderful, but that's not going to be good enough.
Just look at the issue here: we have incredibly more power as individuals to express ourselves publicly - and a 'very educated' HN board can't seem to grasp that.
We're just starting to grasp the power and influence of Social Media - and now that Trump has shown 'what can be done', I'm afraid it will be an 'arms race' of misinformation for a while.
Our system depends on integrity: that your doctors is certified, professional, moral. Same for your teacher. The Judge. And the same applies to information. We 'fact check' books, reports. We certainly expect that in the Scientific domain. So we must have that for public information as well. Which is not to say we won't have other expressive channels, but randoms on 'TikTok' just can't be a source of news, other than the experience they might be able to grab on their phones (which FYI can be enlightening).
So yes, education, but we need credibility in our institutions as well.
I see people are blaming “political correctness”, “mainstream media”, schools coddling children, a lack of “critical thinking”, and “cancel culture”.
In other words: this magically aligns with everything you already believed.
I’m someone’s complete lack of surprise.
In other words: this magically aligns with everything you already believed.
I’m someone’s complete lack of surprise.
"Information diet" is a useful analogy. Imagine you eat a diverse diet of candy, ice cream, potato chips, cookies, doughnuts, and fruits and vegetables. You can make your own analogies about what news sources are junk food, but you can see how trying a little bit of everything in an environment that is full of bad choices is detrimental. We all have limited stomach space and attention.
This subthread is in reply to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25661674 but I've detached it in a feeble effort to reduce the steam coming out of our server.
This diversity of thought stuff is poison, but a lot of these people here seem to lap it up.
How is diversity of thought poison? I wouldn't want to be a part of an online forum or friend group where everyone thought the same way.
Diversity of thought means, in this case, you can find enough people that share your exact believes.
Less diversity as in-for example-a small village means you have to find compromises with your neighbors.
Less diversity as in-for example-a small village means you have to find compromises with your neighbors.
It is both ludicrous and offensive to suggest that the things we're seeing now are in any way a consequence of curtailing hateful speech.
he is sent here to say things that lead us to accept the deeds done by white nationalists
people have different thoughts! some people want an ethnostate for white people and some people dont! we just disagree. too bad that censorship caused all this to happen!
people have different thoughts! some people want an ethnostate for white people and some people dont! we just disagree. too bad that censorship caused all this to happen!
I would add
3. The anonymity of online identity.
People behave very differently when they perceive they are anonymous.
Perhaps this is a version of mob psychology/dynamics where the anonymity of the collective causes people to act in ways that they normally wouldn't.
3. The anonymity of online identity.
People behave very differently when they perceive they are anonymous.
Perhaps this is a version of mob psychology/dynamics where the anonymity of the collective causes people to act in ways that they normally wouldn't.
> People behave very differently when they perceive they are anonymous.
I don't know about that. I see people on FB who are accurately identified by their real name who have no problem whatsoever expressing "F*ck your feelings" to people who are ostensibly their friends. Lack of anonymity doesn't seem to have helped.
I don't know about that. I see people on FB who are accurately identified by their real name who have no problem whatsoever expressing "F*ck your feelings" to people who are ostensibly their friends. Lack of anonymity doesn't seem to have helped.
I purposely used the word "perceive". I think people, even with their real names on the account, view themselves as more "anonymous" online.
Speech aside, what about looking through a lens of personal responsibility?
Some people don't take responsibility for offending others, they'd rather place the blame on the person who heard them. You think that's rather a minor problem, ok. Let's skip past the question of offensive speech for now...
Let's talk about preserving a democracy. What happens when people no longer feel any responsibility for citizens having trust in that democracy? They use their speech to weaken it (this is a much broader group than just Trump) and now, with Trump, even to incite violence if they think it will benefit themselves. Fault and responsibility seems to clearly lie with them and their choices, they shouldn't be able to dodge that responsibility by redirecting to abstract discussion of the pros and cons of restrictions on speech.
You are dodging the direct "how did we get here?" answer of "people are making blatant shortsighted power plays" by talking about people's "iddly-widdly-fweelings." That's ridiculous.
Some people don't take responsibility for offending others, they'd rather place the blame on the person who heard them. You think that's rather a minor problem, ok. Let's skip past the question of offensive speech for now...
Let's talk about preserving a democracy. What happens when people no longer feel any responsibility for citizens having trust in that democracy? They use their speech to weaken it (this is a much broader group than just Trump) and now, with Trump, even to incite violence if they think it will benefit themselves. Fault and responsibility seems to clearly lie with them and their choices, they shouldn't be able to dodge that responsibility by redirecting to abstract discussion of the pros and cons of restrictions on speech.
You are dodging the direct "how did we get here?" answer of "people are making blatant shortsighted power plays" by talking about people's "iddly-widdly-fweelings." That's ridiculous.
This is an interesting point, thanks. I definitely perceive an increasing lack of personal responsibility across the board honestly. A lot of the identity politics/victim one-upmanship stems from this IMO, but I'm glad you presented the other side of it, that people don't want to take any responsibility for when they are actually an asshole either. Not to "both sides" it, but I believe it's deeply concerning how people seem to have fallen away from proper introspection. Which can manifest in bad ways on both sides indeed.
Strong disagreement.
1. In the past, the wrong speech would result in both government, and private sector censure. You're selectively omitting the civil rights struggle, the communist witch hunts, the german witch hunts that preceeded them, the history of internment and concentration camps in this country, the suffrage struggle...
We didn't somehow magically arrive at the world of 2020, without a lot of people being punished for their speech.
2. Our information diet was never as diverse as it is now. Media, prior to the age of the internet, was much more of a monoculture of ideas than it is now. New, radicalizing information arose in university halls and books and rallies, not on the television.
3. People are no more, and no less willing to admit that they were wrong today, as they were in the age of, say, segregation-forever Jim Crow south.
This coup is not the result of offensive speech being restricted, or hurt feelings. It's the direct result of a few people with media and political influence actively directing their followers to undermine our democracy.
This could have happened in any decade - but it happened today because of the particular personalities involved. You elect a president that is very vocal about his lack of respect for the law, the election process, the presidency, or democratic institutions, and this is what you get. The only reason it is happening in 2020, and not 1920, 1960, or 2020 was because the personalities on the ballot in those years had respect for those things - or at least, were adults who managed to check their worst impulses.
When he said that he won't accept the results of any election that he didn't win (back in 2016), do you still think he was confused, or kidding, or misunderstood? He was just being honest. You can't let people who profess such ideas within reaching distance of political power, because they will happily burn the world down around them to retain it.
1. In the past, the wrong speech would result in both government, and private sector censure. You're selectively omitting the civil rights struggle, the communist witch hunts, the german witch hunts that preceeded them, the history of internment and concentration camps in this country, the suffrage struggle...
We didn't somehow magically arrive at the world of 2020, without a lot of people being punished for their speech.
2. Our information diet was never as diverse as it is now. Media, prior to the age of the internet, was much more of a monoculture of ideas than it is now. New, radicalizing information arose in university halls and books and rallies, not on the television.
3. People are no more, and no less willing to admit that they were wrong today, as they were in the age of, say, segregation-forever Jim Crow south.
This coup is not the result of offensive speech being restricted, or hurt feelings. It's the direct result of a few people with media and political influence actively directing their followers to undermine our democracy.
This could have happened in any decade - but it happened today because of the particular personalities involved. You elect a president that is very vocal about his lack of respect for the law, the election process, the presidency, or democratic institutions, and this is what you get. The only reason it is happening in 2020, and not 1920, 1960, or 2020 was because the personalities on the ballot in those years had respect for those things - or at least, were adults who managed to check their worst impulses.
When he said that he won't accept the results of any election that he didn't win (back in 2016), do you still think he was confused, or kidding, or misunderstood? He was just being honest. You can't let people who profess such ideas within reaching distance of political power, because they will happily burn the world down around them to retain it.
This is the opposite of that. This is free speech coupled with poor education and misinformation spreading like wildfire to large amounts of people via the internet.
The solution, in my opinion, is a massive investment in public education (schools for the next generation and reskilling and educating for adults paid like a job via a stipend) and a shifting of American politics to the left so you actually have a left and a right like most democratic countries.right now you have a far right and right wing party.
The solution, in my opinion, is a massive investment in public education (schools for the next generation and reskilling and educating for adults paid like a job via a stipend) and a shifting of American politics to the left so you actually have a left and a right like most democratic countries.right now you have a far right and right wing party.
I agree with many of your points. What has happened in this country is tragic. Our media hasn't helped by constantly pouring gasoline on the flames and the pandemic has kept us from even being able to really talk to and address one another, ESPECIALLY people who live in cities.
This is utter madness and it has to stop. We have to start to see each other and people and not adversaries. You might like something I wrote last night about how the American mind has been fractured:
https://battlepenguin.com/philosophy/the-fracturing-of-the-h...
This is utter madness and it has to stop. We have to start to see each other and people and not adversaries. You might like something I wrote last night about how the American mind has been fractured:
https://battlepenguin.com/philosophy/the-fracturing-of-the-h...
Ar-Curunir(1)
These are the same people and ideologies that made up the white supremacist dominionist militia movements in the 80s that were only treated as a threat after the OKC bombing and have been purposefully allowed free rein under Trump. This aint cause of fucking "cancel culture"
These people who are storming the capital are doing it on the back of a lie, that Trump won the election. That is a lie that is perpetuated by numerous forms of alternative media. How is this the result of an erosion of free speech? If free speech was eroded, these alternative media sources wouldn't be able to incite violence with their lies. Your analysis doesn't make any sense.
It's a symptom.
You're not seeing the connection because you aren't thinking at a high enough level of abstraction. The entire social media and entertainment edifice is built on the objective of telling you what you want to hear. This basically generates a rapidly polarizing schism with a tendency toward radicalization, anda natural aversion toward established info sources on course correction, because if they didn't get it right the first time, or second, or third time, then why give the benefit of a doubt?
You can argue these people weren't looking for truth in thefirst place, but you're missing out on that the "Truth" is not the same to all people, and as it turns out, you rely on the fluid nature of non-bubbled organization and communication to ground disruptive social energy and disharmony.
You're not seeing the connection because you aren't thinking at a high enough level of abstraction. The entire social media and entertainment edifice is built on the objective of telling you what you want to hear. This basically generates a rapidly polarizing schism with a tendency toward radicalization, anda natural aversion toward established info sources on course correction, because if they didn't get it right the first time, or second, or third time, then why give the benefit of a doubt?
You can argue these people weren't looking for truth in thefirst place, but you're missing out on that the "Truth" is not the same to all people, and as it turns out, you rely on the fluid nature of non-bubbled organization and communication to ground disruptive social energy and disharmony.
> The entire social media and entertainment edifice is built on the objective of telling you what you want to hear.
I agree. See my comment here[1]. I simply don't see how that is the result or evidence of too little free speech. The opposite seems true. The problem isn't that people can't say what they believe. It is that people have the freedom to knowingly lie in order to corrupt the beliefs of others.
[1] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25662297
I agree. See my comment here[1]. I simply don't see how that is the result or evidence of too little free speech. The opposite seems true. The problem isn't that people can't say what they believe. It is that people have the freedom to knowingly lie in order to corrupt the beliefs of others.
[1] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25662297
they were forced into echo chambers because mainstream channels are their own echo chambers.
thus the 2 realities the top post is referring to.
thus the 2 realities the top post is referring to.
They didn't leave the mainstream channels because they weren't allowed to speak. They left the mainstream channels because truth was not compatible with their worldview.
Ah, but is there any avenue for you to speak to them?
No, because they left the mainstream channels. I am still watching the same basic channels, following the same basic reporters, and reading the same basic news that I did 5 or 10 years ago. They are the ones who left for alternatives. Just look at the recent moves from Fox News to OAN or Newsmax. They will go wherever they hear what they want to hear. If I went to those places to talk to them, they would go somewhere else.
Have you tried any other sources? Because if you actually had, it's not that they're telling people what they want to hear. It's that they're showing the exact same things, except with the full clips and contexts.
Go watch the George Floyd body cameras. All of them. The full 1 hour (30 min per officer). The story is ENTIRELY different than the one that was fed to us.
Go watch the George Floyd body cameras. All of them. The full 1 hour (30 min per officer). The story is ENTIRELY different than the one that was fed to us.
This wasn't about George Floyd. It was about who won the election. What are your "other sources" saying about that?
The mainstream channels have constantly and blatantly lied to us about absolutely everything. Or have you forgotten Weapons of Mass Destruction, 15 days to flatten the curve, or the complete silencing of the Hunter Biden story (and it turns out he IS under active FBI investigation).
People don't trust those channels because it's so easy to look at literally any other non-mainstream source to see how we've been constantly lied to.
People don't trust those channels because it's so easy to look at literally any other non-mainstream source to see how we've been constantly lied to.
I think your underestimating how much of this is on mainstream news channels. Watching CNN arguably part of the liberal media you can hear people question the validity of the election an put forth conspiracy theories.
“Sudden discovery of 50 thousand votes”, and suggestions that “Democratic counties reporting last” means they can arbitrarily add votes as needed.
This isn’t some extreme view it’s being endorsed by both elected officials and pundits. I am genuinely concerned that people have forgotten just how fragile democracy is and are trying to score political points at the expense of critical institutions.
“Sudden discovery of 50 thousand votes”, and suggestions that “Democratic counties reporting last” means they can arbitrarily add votes as needed.
This isn’t some extreme view it’s being endorsed by both elected officials and pundits. I am genuinely concerned that people have forgotten just how fragile democracy is and are trying to score political points at the expense of critical institutions.
> I am genuinely concerned that people have forgotten just how fragile democracy is and are trying to score political points at the expense of critical institutions.
That's assuming the losing minority still wants democracy. Maybe they just want King-for-Life Trump.
That's assuming the losing minority still wants democracy. Maybe they just want King-for-Life Trump.
an alternative hypothesis is that they voluntarily isolated themselves into echo chambers because they didn't like the reality that the mainstream news was reporting
Just because you don't like the truth doesn't mean you were "forced" into believing falsehoods.
News outlets act like they have a monopoly on truth, which you even believe, yet it's the truth about useless facts. Get CNN or Breitbart to report on Apple child labor, expose wall street, or expose the impact of consumer products on the environment and then I'll listen.
political news is a waste of time and probably a net negative for an individual. That's MY truth which you won't find on CNN or breitbart's twitter feed.
I actively avoid political news (it sucks it is showing up here on HN).
political news is a waste of time and probably a net negative for an individual. That's MY truth which you won't find on CNN or breitbart's twitter feed.
I actively avoid political news (it sucks it is showing up here on HN).
CNN does cover apple child labor: https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/17/tech/apple-microsoft-tesla-de... and consumder products on environment: https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/23/world/plastic-pollution-2040-...
EDIT: I don't like CNN fwiw.
EDIT: I don't like CNN fwiw.
CNN Business and CNN World are different than the main CNN Politics tv channel, right?
I was mainly talking about political news, I do occasionally browse some mainstream business news.
I was mainly talking about political news, I do occasionally browse some mainstream business news.
> CNN Business and CNN World are different than the main CNN Politics tv channel, right?
There is no “CNN Politics” TV channel, nor is there a “CNN World” (“CNN International” is a thing, though) or “CNN Business” (there used to be CNNfn, but its been gone for more than a decade) channel.
“Business”, “Politics”, and “World” are sections of the CNN website; the corresponding content would generally all be covered, on TV, by the main CNN channel.
There is no “CNN Politics” TV channel, nor is there a “CNN World” (“CNN International” is a thing, though) or “CNN Business” (there used to be CNNfn, but its been gone for more than a decade) channel.
“Business”, “Politics”, and “World” are sections of the CNN website; the corresponding content would generally all be covered, on TV, by the main CNN channel.
The truth is most news and media organizations who have established television networks (MSNBC, CNN, FOX, Whatever else) also have separate editorial for linear programming and digital news. They don't serve the same purpose or the same audience. It's why you can find CNN digital as less biased than CNN linear or Fox News digital might call a state early because their analysis says one thing but the talking heads say another.
Why would Apple's labor violations be under CNN Politics? Apple is a business, not a political party.
Yup. Which is why I avoid political news and think it's pointless for most people.
The current nature of information flow made it easy for them to lie to each other. It isolated them from opposing viewpoints, so they went into an echo chamber of their own.
This is always the problem with suppressed speech. Nonsense will still be spewed, but no one reasonable gets a chance to counter it with analysis and cool it down.
Zeitgeist is broken.
This is always the problem with suppressed speech. Nonsense will still be spewed, but no one reasonable gets a chance to counter it with analysis and cool it down.
Zeitgeist is broken.
Their speech wasn't suppressed. It was simply that they didn't want to hear reality. CNN almost never turns away national politicians. The Sunday politics shows constantly have balanced or right leaning panels. They aren't being silenced. They just want to go somewhere that tells them what they want to hear.
This is absolute nonsense. You are trying your damndest to espouse the HN screed of "Free Speech" but it's got nothing to do with why conservatives have raided the Capitol. Conservatives have raided the capitol for the same they raided Wilmington in 1898, the courthouse in Colfax and why they attacked Ellenton. And that reason is because they feel that white hegemony is under attack, and since democracy can't be used to secure it, it has to go.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilmington_insurrection_of_189...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellenton_riot
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colfax_massacre
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilmington_insurrection_of_189...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellenton_riot
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colfax_massacre
Yea, America has gone through worse. It will survive this.
You're trying to blame something you don't like on something else you don't like, but it doesn't fit.
The censorship and punishment you claim as new is plainly and obviously not a recent development, look at how socialist and capitalist ideas have been treated for the last century. Or how American evangelism has treated "dangerous" ideas for even longer than that. https://www.amazon.com/Scandal-Evangelical-Mind-Mark-Noll/dp... , for instance. Never have we been a country full of people willing to admit we're wrong. But we're increasingly a country of people being pandered to by those who want to make a buck telling us we're not actually wrong.
I think you'd more easily make the OPPOSITE argument, that our norms about what is acceptable speech have eroded too far, that we've taken free speech to an unhealthy extreme (such as how our tech platforms will happily amplify the speech of extremists - in fact, they PREFER to do this, because their algorithms have figured out that it gets more ad views).
If it's acceptable for politicians to respond to losing popularity by claiming fraud - as Trump has been doing for months - then you are on the path that leads here. If the resulting violence is not acceptable, but you ALSO don't want to restrict Trump's speech with stronger norms, what do you propose instead?
How many previous presidents would be inciting this sort of thing? How is that the result of less free speech?
The censorship and punishment you claim as new is plainly and obviously not a recent development, look at how socialist and capitalist ideas have been treated for the last century. Or how American evangelism has treated "dangerous" ideas for even longer than that. https://www.amazon.com/Scandal-Evangelical-Mind-Mark-Noll/dp... , for instance. Never have we been a country full of people willing to admit we're wrong. But we're increasingly a country of people being pandered to by those who want to make a buck telling us we're not actually wrong.
I think you'd more easily make the OPPOSITE argument, that our norms about what is acceptable speech have eroded too far, that we've taken free speech to an unhealthy extreme (such as how our tech platforms will happily amplify the speech of extremists - in fact, they PREFER to do this, because their algorithms have figured out that it gets more ad views).
If it's acceptable for politicians to respond to losing popularity by claiming fraud - as Trump has been doing for months - then you are on the path that leads here. If the resulting violence is not acceptable, but you ALSO don't want to restrict Trump's speech with stronger norms, what do you propose instead?
How many previous presidents would be inciting this sort of thing? How is that the result of less free speech?
Maybe the problem is more an unequal distribution of "freeness" of speech across the society; grouped as the ruling political class, the opposition political class, and the distribution of thought in the populace.
The ruling class says whatever it wants with belief that there can never be any negative results for any action they take (max "freeness"),
the opposition can't talk about anything in a substantive way because all they do is react to the inane and random political grenades thrown by the ruling party (very constrained "freeness" really. Being forced to respond to propaganda-maximizing controversy after propaganda-effectiveness-maximizing controversy is a record that sucks to play and is definitely forced onto the air more than everyone wants -- and the targets of the propaganda blame the wrong people for why they have to keep listening to it ... )
the people are left with no meaningful political voice (0 freeness of speech) because there's virtually 0 correlation between anything being talked about in the political dances and anything that is actually sufficiently practical to talk about as to be worth the cognitive attention required to talk about it ... You can't have free political speech when there are no political engagements worth talking about ...
The "team sport" that is the current political landscape is not at all a fun or useful game -- some amount of fun and usefulness is gonna need to be found and introduced to the process of defining government to help move out of this ...
The ruling class says whatever it wants with belief that there can never be any negative results for any action they take (max "freeness"),
the opposition can't talk about anything in a substantive way because all they do is react to the inane and random political grenades thrown by the ruling party (very constrained "freeness" really. Being forced to respond to propaganda-maximizing controversy after propaganda-effectiveness-maximizing controversy is a record that sucks to play and is definitely forced onto the air more than everyone wants -- and the targets of the propaganda blame the wrong people for why they have to keep listening to it ... )
the people are left with no meaningful political voice (0 freeness of speech) because there's virtually 0 correlation between anything being talked about in the political dances and anything that is actually sufficiently practical to talk about as to be worth the cognitive attention required to talk about it ... You can't have free political speech when there are no political engagements worth talking about ...
The "team sport" that is the current political landscape is not at all a fun or useful game -- some amount of fun and usefulness is gonna need to be found and introduced to the process of defining government to help move out of this ...
I don't really think so - because I don't see the splits that way, as many of the people angry about "reduced speech" are people with extremely high levels of speech as members of the ruling political class, like Ted Cruz - but this is somewhat similar to one of the theories about the modern American Right's appeal in the South - increased opportunity for minorities is seen as a threat to the folks used to having it all their way. Increased speech for previously-censored groups is interpreted as censorship of themselves.
Sorry I didn't mean to imply that the anger component here was related to any specific party complaining about loss of political speech in a disingenuous way -- I was more attempting to diagnose the current overall bad state of the politics as being a result of the way that pressure is put onto "freeness" of speech when an authoritarian regime actively creates an engine that makes reasonable discourse difficult or impossible ...
People express themselves politically through voting. These people in particular had every form of expression available to them. They discussed whatever they wanted, and I can provide you with links where you can see those discussions
I clarified in my other comment -- I wasn't trying to imply that the violence here was a consequence of the extremists involved having any legitimate claim that their free speech has been curtailed.
I think this riot is best understood as being actively organized by the current ruling party.
I think there is a clear free speech issue in the current politics though -- systematically devaluing the potential for productive political talk is a form of free speech restriction -- it's a ddos attack against rational discourse - which has the effect of reducing the value of political discourse in general.
I think this riot is best understood as being actively organized by the current ruling party.
I think there is a clear free speech issue in the current politics though -- systematically devaluing the potential for productive political talk is a form of free speech restriction -- it's a ddos attack against rational discourse - which has the effect of reducing the value of political discourse in general.
A good example for your point would be McCarthyism. The idea of a more ideal free speech society we had in the past is probably naive, and that's likely true in the US and elsewhere.
I doubt that this is a technical issue. Sure, the internet, social media and filter bubbles will have an influence. But there are so many political forces at play, so many angles under which the situation could be explained.
> How many previous presidents would be inciting this sort of thing? How is that the result of less free speech?
That's an old debate in history - are specific events caused by specific people, or are the political currents so strong that no matter who would've been in a specific position, history would have likely taken the same course?
But here it is for certain that this specific coup hinges on the absolute leader figure Trump is for his followers. And it follows what he says all the time.
I doubt that this is a technical issue. Sure, the internet, social media and filter bubbles will have an influence. But there are so many political forces at play, so many angles under which the situation could be explained.
> How many previous presidents would be inciting this sort of thing? How is that the result of less free speech?
That's an old debate in history - are specific events caused by specific people, or are the political currents so strong that no matter who would've been in a specific position, history would have likely taken the same course?
But here it is for certain that this specific coup hinges on the absolute leader figure Trump is for his followers. And it follows what he says all the time.
> That's an old debate in history - are specific events caused by specific people, or are the political currents so strong that no matter who would've been in a specific position, history would have likely taken the same course?
> But here it is for certain that this specific coup hings on the absolute leader figure Trump is for his followers. And what he says all the time.
Even there it's both, I think. Trump is part of a trend towards valuing immediate power over everything else, and being willing to play dirty to keep that power. His followers listen to him in large part because they've been primed by the media for decades to distrust the "mainstream" (where "mainstream" apparently doesn't include some of the people with the largest audiences, but actually just means "people who disagree with you").
The mystery is just how those people maintain the cognitive dissonance of being "pro speech" and "pro democracy" when they've tuned out everything else and are just focused on power in what they perceive as a war...
> But here it is for certain that this specific coup hings on the absolute leader figure Trump is for his followers. And what he says all the time.
Even there it's both, I think. Trump is part of a trend towards valuing immediate power over everything else, and being willing to play dirty to keep that power. His followers listen to him in large part because they've been primed by the media for decades to distrust the "mainstream" (where "mainstream" apparently doesn't include some of the people with the largest audiences, but actually just means "people who disagree with you").
The mystery is just how those people maintain the cognitive dissonance of being "pro speech" and "pro democracy" when they've tuned out everything else and are just focused on power in what they perceive as a war...
From War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy:
> Equally right or wrong is he who says that Napolean went to Moscow because he wanted to, and perished because Alexander desired his destruction, and he who says that an undermined hill weighing a million tons fell because the last labourer struck it for the last time with his pickaxe. In historic events the so-called great men are labels giving names to events, and like labels they have but the smallest connection with the event itself.
> Equally right or wrong is he who says that Napolean went to Moscow because he wanted to, and perished because Alexander desired his destruction, and he who says that an undermined hill weighing a million tons fell because the last labourer struck it for the last time with his pickaxe. In historic events the so-called great men are labels giving names to events, and like labels they have but the smallest connection with the event itself.
Has been a few years, but War and Peace takes indeed one extreme position in that debate. That's in the whole book, including the chaos of the battles. It's a great perspective, thanks for citing it here.
Sure, that follows. In an environment where the US-american public would be immune to someone who can rack up 100 lies in 5 minutes, someone like Trump would not have followers. So an individual can influence history as much as the environment permits. On the other hand, people are forming that environment and again and again there are specific situations where a single person seemed to change the course of history. Does that count as paradox? I always found that part of historical perspectives fascinating.
> The mystery is just how those people maintain the cognitive dissonance of being "pro speech" and "pro democracy" when they've tuned out everything else and are just focused on power in what they perceive as a war...
Yes, that is a fascinating mystery. But one has to keep in mind: Many of the people that just tried a coup today and effectively tried to dismantle the democratic system in the US by installing a dictator will think of themselves as defenders of democracy. There will be of course hard right wing nationalist terrorists in that crowd - the last pro-trump protests have shown that - but there can only be so many of those.
> The mystery is just how those people maintain the cognitive dissonance of being "pro speech" and "pro democracy" when they've tuned out everything else and are just focused on power in what they perceive as a war...
Yes, that is a fascinating mystery. But one has to keep in mind: Many of the people that just tried a coup today and effectively tried to dismantle the democratic system in the US by installing a dictator will think of themselves as defenders of democracy. There will be of course hard right wing nationalist terrorists in that crowd - the last pro-trump protests have shown that - but there can only be so many of those.
> today employees, students, and professors are all punished administratively for saying something that contradicts the narrative of the predominant members, or that may be offensive to someone
Didn't we already go through this during McCarthyist red scares?
Didn't we already go through this during McCarthyist red scares?
Thank you for putting into words my exact thoughts on this matter. This is indeed exactly what's occurring and I'm not sure of what a good solution may be. Perhaps extending freedom from retaliation by employers to freedom of speech guarantees would be enough, especially educators.
What kind of backwards logic is this? The fact that insane falsehood-spewing nutters can find a wide and exclusive audience (who have the freedom to choose not to listen to the non-nutters) is proof of the lack of practical restrictions on free speech, not proof of the erosion of free speech.
I live in Europe and believe me when I tell you the general perception about USA has gotten much worse during the last months.
I can't vote to unflag things, but this really, really should not be flagged. It is just a little more important than most political garbage.
On this website, we pretend that the entire world can be reduced to a good-faith discussion between two sides with equal merit. Anything that is incompatible with this is distasteful.
That's not true, and you'll notice also that the OP is now not flagged.
I just want to give the obligatory thank you dang, I moderated and eventually administrated a modestly sized sports forum for 5 years, and I didn't do half as good a job as you do solo modding this place, especially at times like this.
Hey dang, if you ever see this I just want to say I meant no offense to you or your efforts. Some people on hn frustrate me on occasion—I doubt you flagged it :)
Why, seriously? Those of us who care what is happening have the news and political discussion sites open in other tabs. No one who cares is ignoring current events. I think it’s just as important to flag it as anything else that doesn’t meet the rules.
Please don't speak for so many people. I, for example, do not have such sites open.
Thanks. I edited to clarify that people who care have them open.
Politics maybe off topic, but this is partially our fault. It’s always frustrated me that politics are largely unaddressed on HN. Not talking about it doesn’t make it not so.
Politics aren't unaddressed. There have been plenty of political threads this year, and every year. At the same time, political flames will take over the site completely if allowed to, so we can't allow them to. This is a hard problem.
If you or anyone want to know how we think about that problem, there are a lot of past explanations at these links:
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...
https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...
If you or anyone want to know how we think about that problem, there are a lot of past explanations at these links:
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...
https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...
At this point, I don't believe this story can be categorized as simply "politics." This is momentous historical event that's absolutely unprecedented in modern U.S. history.
Agreed. This story has moved beyond “politics” narrowly speaking. I’m suggesting that, by not discussing actual politics the people building the technologies enabling the the causes of today, it’s irresponsible.
This. Facebook and the other social networks have spent a decade and a half curating echo chambers for insanity and this is the predictable result. It's been a long, slow buildup to this, not quite another McVeigh moment but not too far from it.
What will it take for tech people to acknowledge that, combined with the fake-drama-soaked media, they've built something socially corrosive?
What will it take for tech people to acknowledge that, combined with the fake-drama-soaked media, they've built something socially corrosive?
Is it avoidable though? Social media might be accelerating the development of echo chambers, but the underlying reason why it works is because people seem to enjoy tribalism. I'm not sure that connecting people globally could end up in any other way. Most people are not capable of being part of a large community of like minded people and still keep objectiveness and perspective. This is something I've been thinking about a lot, and it seems rather hopeless. I'd love to have my mind changed.
I wont change your mind, but maybe we can share more nuanced reasons for the modern issue -
I'll argue, strongly everything regarding Social Media/ misinformation / content security is an epiphenomena of : the shape, rate and self forming nature of modern human communication networks.
The pace of interaction and information has simply overwhelmed the ability of human one on one interaction.
Most of our actions are with a mobile phone near us, meaning that the social sphere is directly with us and only a twitter/FB/Reddit/HN glance away.
Doesn't help that the sites need to be competitively addictive to be financially viable.
So no matter how much you interact on a 1 on 1 basis, a few seconds after they return to their phone they are part of the new outrage cycle.
Do note that the whole thing above is doable with cable television news as well.
So you can, for a little bit, look at the network structure and pace, while looking at humans as connected processing hubs that are getting compromised.
------
Heres an actual paper showing that Misinformation based communication travels differently than "Fact" based information https://www.pnas.org/content/113/3/554.full.
I'll argue, strongly everything regarding Social Media/ misinformation / content security is an epiphenomena of : the shape, rate and self forming nature of modern human communication networks.
The pace of interaction and information has simply overwhelmed the ability of human one on one interaction.
Most of our actions are with a mobile phone near us, meaning that the social sphere is directly with us and only a twitter/FB/Reddit/HN glance away.
Doesn't help that the sites need to be competitively addictive to be financially viable.
So no matter how much you interact on a 1 on 1 basis, a few seconds after they return to their phone they are part of the new outrage cycle.
Do note that the whole thing above is doable with cable television news as well.
So you can, for a little bit, look at the network structure and pace, while looking at humans as connected processing hubs that are getting compromised.
------
Heres an actual paper showing that Misinformation based communication travels differently than "Fact" based information https://www.pnas.org/content/113/3/554.full.
I completely agree with everything you've said. My main point is that I suspect this is a natural development even with all economic incentives and Algorithms set aside. Facebook et. al. are capitalizing on social psychology that would be there even if they weren't. You can see the same sort of echo chambers taking shape in other fora such as 4chan, Reddit and Mastodon. These do not incorporate the Algorithms that are often solely blamed for the outrage cycle.
If people both A) Enjoy to be part of communities of like minded people B) Cannot stay objective and keep perspective once immersed in one
then the current situation (and worse) seem to be inevitable. Regardless of actions taken against (or complete elimination of) the big commercial players.
If people both A) Enjoy to be part of communities of like minded people B) Cannot stay objective and keep perspective once immersed in one
then the current situation (and worse) seem to be inevitable. Regardless of actions taken against (or complete elimination of) the big commercial players.
I agree!
You can even go back to the cable news era and see the same issues. It seems quaint but the Fox News effect and the Fox News bubbles were things that were already driving those forces.
The evidence suggests to me that our ideals on free speech do not take into account human wetware bandwidth when it’s being influenced by modern telecommunications and Internet enabled conversations.
You can even go back to the cable news era and see the same issues. It seems quaint but the Fox News effect and the Fox News bubbles were things that were already driving those forces.
The evidence suggests to me that our ideals on free speech do not take into account human wetware bandwidth when it’s being influenced by modern telecommunications and Internet enabled conversations.
Plenty of political discussion happens on HN, but dang does a good job of removing the toxic comments and letting the civil comments remain.
> but this is partially our fault
Yes, I've called dang out on his inaction numerous times. HN is utterly filled with alt-right scum.
Yes, I've called dang out on his inaction numerous times. HN is utterly filled with alt-right scum.
You might be living in a bubble if you think HN is alt-right. Trump got 46.9 % of the vote. He has nowhere near that level of support here.
> Flagged
Does anything matter if this doesn't? The chat is fairly civil.
Does anything matter if this doesn't? The chat is fairly civil.
[deleted]
HN doesn't chat.
We prefer to have constructive discussions. Most of the comments here are not constructive nor charitable.
We prefer to have constructive discussions. Most of the comments here are not constructive nor charitable.
What an odd day.
Were the people rushing into the Capitol convinced that this salvo would actually effectively cancel out the results of the election?
Was this just a sort of show of strength? To what end?
I only know one diehard MAGA type and she's kind of hard to follow. She goes on at length about things like the Jewish conspiracy to use black people to secure their stronghold on the media and banking, establishing circumcision as a norm for males in the US as a way to show the US fealty to Israel, and something about Trump being akin to Roko's Basilisk and the importance of being on the right side of history.
I'm assuming she's not your average conservative, so I'd love to hear from a participant in today's activities to hear about their goals and motivations for today's activities.
Were the people rushing into the Capitol convinced that this salvo would actually effectively cancel out the results of the election?
Was this just a sort of show of strength? To what end?
I only know one diehard MAGA type and she's kind of hard to follow. She goes on at length about things like the Jewish conspiracy to use black people to secure their stronghold on the media and banking, establishing circumcision as a norm for males in the US as a way to show the US fealty to Israel, and something about Trump being akin to Roko's Basilisk and the importance of being on the right side of history.
I'm assuming she's not your average conservative, so I'd love to hear from a participant in today's activities to hear about their goals and motivations for today's activities.
[deleted]
iron0013(1)
okprod(2)
Indifferent to the Clown show.
But like him or not, Steve Bannon suggested this would happen. It has something to do with the Democrats and the way they went after Trump. He basically said they are setting the precedent for what happens when they're back in power. He said both sides need to remember respect is a two way street.
I would recommend the following Real Time with Bill Maher Interview.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egVlN-kBjZg
But like him or not, Steve Bannon suggested this would happen. It has something to do with the Democrats and the way they went after Trump. He basically said they are setting the precedent for what happens when they're back in power. He said both sides need to remember respect is a two way street.
I would recommend the following Real Time with Bill Maher Interview.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egVlN-kBjZg
Trump was certainly cheated out of the elections, I hope it doesn't end with electoral college. The machinery behind Biden is astonishing, and they weren't even able to win fair and square.
fjdjsmsm(1)
I wonder if historians will see Gamergate as the start of all this.
It's a meme on 4chan right now that this is the case and I can see the lineage.
It's a meme on 4chan right now that this is the case and I can see the lineage.
At the very least this goes back to the Tea Party, but many would point to Nixon's Southern strategy.
What? That's ridiculous. How is everyone on Hacker News so miseducated? This goes back to real inequity, even if the details are beyond the folks currently storming the capitol building.
Powerfully stupid take
Asmod4n(1)
Why did judges and politicians in a number of states violated the constitution by changing state law? Why this only happened in states that went for Biden? Why are these questions being ignored by most of the media and politicians?
No it didn’t just happen in Biden states, superior courts gave controlling precedents that state courts interpret election law
speedgoose(3)
awnird(2)
th48(2)
[deleted]
Now the right wingers are rioting. 2021 should be fun
Is this a coup?
Yes. Armed protestors storming the capitol and taking over the legislative chambers at the request of the defeated president is 100% a literal coup.
To which the penalty could be death. I doubt it will come to that, but these clowns are over their head.
If penalties like this are not enforced against violent attacks that intend to change the results of an election, then America will lose it's democracy.
Executions are more about theatrics than being a reasonable punishment. There is basically no reason someone who's in custody and not posing or posing an /immediate/ threat to life and limb should be killed. And it won't have the effect you want anyway- you'll end up martyring them.
Hell no we shouldn't kill people for this. I can hardly think of a more damaging and terrible way to combat these crazies.
Where are you reading that the protestors are armed? The linked NPR article does not say so. The NYTimes coverage [1] mentions that people posted pictures of weapons on Facebook on Tuesday, but does not mention that the people in the Capitol are armed.
Breaching into government buildings in response to spurious allegations of electoral fraud is bad enough - there's no need to taint the message with embellishment, and doing so gives ammunition to people who want to claim that critics of these events are spreading falsehoods.
1. https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/01/06/us/electoral-vote
Breaching into government buildings in response to spurious allegations of electoral fraud is bad enough - there's no need to taint the message with embellishment, and doing so gives ammunition to people who want to claim that critics of these events are spreading falsehoods.
1. https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/01/06/us/electoral-vote
6 minutes ago (as of the time of this comment) the New York Times reports that 5 guns were seized by police: https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/01/06/us/washington-dc-pro...
The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2021/jan/06/georgia... as well as first person accounts on Twitter from people who work in the capital.
If you’ve seen the NSFW video of the protestor getting shot in the neck while in the Capitol building, you would have noticed someone next to her holding a semi-auto rifle (AR-15, my best guess).
That guy is almost certainly police, seeing as he's shouting at the people to leave the building: https://i.imgur.com/teOuPwU.png
https://i.imgur.com/kJZnAHc.png
https://i.imgur.com/zzQWeZZ.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/kJZnAHc.png
https://i.imgur.com/zzQWeZZ.jpg
That're obviously the police...
Not sure you can count tear gas and fire extinguishers as "armed" (that's what CSPAN is showing and reporting).
Then again, the lack of firearms is probably why Capitol Police are playing it so calm.
Then again, the lack of firearms is probably why Capitol Police are playing it so calm.
I mean my city counted wood shields, water bottles, and leaf blowers during the BLM protests. I don't think either group is armed but we should at least be apply the label consistently.
This (aside from the realisation of how fragile american democracy is) isn't yet, but in the Pa. State Senate they have realised they can just refuse to swear in the newly elected democratic senator and refuse to let the Democratic Lt. Gov. Preside.
These Republicans (particularly Ted Cruz) aren't stupid enough to believe their own words, but they're seriously playing with fire risking their countries democracy in the name of a '24 run at a time when China is only getting stronger.
These Republicans (particularly Ted Cruz) aren't stupid enough to believe their own words, but they're seriously playing with fire risking their countries democracy in the name of a '24 run at a time when China is only getting stronger.
It should be treated as a coup attempt.
More of a dress rehearsal.
Rhetorical question? If not a coup then certainly an attempted coup.
[deleted]
[deleted]
This is stupid. At the end of the day, a lot of these clowns are going to be injured and/or in jail, and Joe Biden is still going to be president on January 20th.
EDIT - Just to be clear, I'm saying the rioters are stupid, not anything/anyone else.
EDIT - Just to be clear, I'm saying the rioters are stupid, not anything/anyone else.
Trump has called for everyone to go home. We will see if they listen to him.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/13469288825958850...
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/13469288825958850...
This is very blatantly a continued instigation, not an actual call to go home.
Trump also specifically said that he loves the insurgents that have occupied the nation's capitol. So a mixed message at best.
An IED was just discovered, these are not protests, this is insurrection and sedition.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Live-updates-U-... @ 12:59p
EDIT: fixed time.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Live-updates-U-... @ 12:59p
EDIT: fixed time.
NBC:
on MSNBC: At least one IED was found. It's now in the hands of law enforcement.
https://nitter.net/oneunderscore__/status/134692342971531673...
on MSNBC: At least one IED was found. It's now in the hands of law enforcement.
https://nitter.net/oneunderscore__/status/134692342971531673...
Trump could stop this in minutes, but he won't, yet. He wants you to know how much power he has. He wants you to remember that, even though you voted him out, he can still spoil the party. This is about his ego and his power. He has an army, and that army can shutdown the government.
It's sad to see people enabling him. He won't win. The nation is stronger. He probably thinks he's winning right now though.
It's sad to see people enabling him. He won't win. The nation is stronger. He probably thinks he's winning right now though.
dang@: I still think you’re wrong about the HN community. It’s exactly what I said it was in my other comment.
For whoever downvoted me, calm down! dang@ and I had a conversation over the weekend on a different post about the HN community. I didn’t leave a comment today about it.
I asked him to show me data that confirms that the HN community is not what I think it is. I partially believe this is why he added the link in his comment since he added a similar link in his reply to me over the weekend.
And his comment today was basically what I said in the other post. The HN community is going to behave themselves on the millionth hate post about Electron or Amp urls. But they’re going to show their asses on these sort of posts.
dang@ basically agreed with me but then said “But still, no the community is fine.” You can’t use silly Electron posts to prove that point.
I asked him to show me data that confirms that the HN community is not what I think it is. I partially believe this is why he added the link in his comment since he added a similar link in his reply to me over the weekend.
And his comment today was basically what I said in the other post. The HN community is going to behave themselves on the millionth hate post about Electron or Amp urls. But they’re going to show their asses on these sort of posts.
dang@ basically agreed with me but then said “But still, no the community is fine.” You can’t use silly Electron posts to prove that point.
The U.S. was this divided politically before WW I.
WW II united most of the country, then the Cold War kept it united. With the end of the Cold War, with no enemy to unite to two half’s of the country it’s back to where we were 100 years ago.
I also live in Trump country and I hear all this nonsense, the “Trumpism”, and slogans etc, are nothing more than racist White people feeling empowered.
It’s the explosion of the repressed racism held in by some white people. That’s why they complain about Politically Correct, they can be openly prejudiced and it kills them.
These people know Trump didn’t win, they know there was no cheating, but it’s all they can say to support their hate, if they say anything else they know they be outed for who and what they are.
WW II united most of the country, then the Cold War kept it united. With the end of the Cold War, with no enemy to unite to two half’s of the country it’s back to where we were 100 years ago.
I also live in Trump country and I hear all this nonsense, the “Trumpism”, and slogans etc, are nothing more than racist White people feeling empowered.
It’s the explosion of the repressed racism held in by some white people. That’s why they complain about Politically Correct, they can be openly prejudiced and it kills them.
These people know Trump didn’t win, they know there was no cheating, but it’s all they can say to support their hate, if they say anything else they know they be outed for who and what they are.
one thing I hope the politicians take from this is that they are indeed vulnerable, not in charge, and subject to consequences.
it's the people who are in charge and the politicians serve at their pleasure.
it's the people who are in charge and the politicians serve at their pleasure.
Interesting how all of the same liberal yuppies who endorsed last year's hot summer, with the authorities bowing before the rioters and tolerating breakaway microstates, have now turned into Thermidorian counterrevolutionaries demanding that the last futile attempt by Americans to make sure their country remains a country, rather than a global shopping mall, be punished with utmost strictness.
A good time as any to quote Joseph de Maistre:
"Every man has certain duties to perform, and the extent of these duties depends on his position in society and the extent of his means. The same action is by no means equally culpable when committed by two different men. Not to stray from our subject, the same act which results only from a mistake or a foolish characteristic in an obscure person, thrust suddenly into unlimited power, could be a foul crime in a bishop or a duke or a peer.
Indeed, some actions, which are excusable and even praiseworthy from an ordinary point of view, are fundamentally infinitely criminal. For example, if someone says, I have espoused the cause of the French Revolution in good faith, through a pure love of liberty and my country; I have believed in my soul and conscience that it would lead to the reform of abuses and to the general good, we have nothing to say in reply. But the eye of him who sees into every heart discerns the stain of sin; he discovers in a ridiculous misunderstanding, in a small puncturing of pride, in a base or criminal passion, the prime moving force behind those ambitions we wish to present to the world as noble: and for him the crime is compounded by grafting the falsehood of hypocrisy onto treason. But let us look at the nation in general.
One of the greatest possible crimes is undoubtedly an attack upon sovereignty, no other having such terrible consequences. If sovereignty resides in one man and this man falls victim to an outrage, the crime of lese-majesty augments the atrocity. But if this sovereign has not deserved his fate through any fault of his own, if his very virtues have strengthened the guilty against him, the crime is beyond description. This is the case in the death of Louis XVI; but what is important to note is that never has such a great crime had more accomplices. The death of Charles I had far fewer, even though it was possible to bring charges against him that Louis XVI did not merit. Yet many proofs were given of the most tender and courageous concern for him; even the executioner, who was obliged to obey, did not dare to make himself known. But in France, Louis XVI marched to his death in the middle of 60,000 armed men who did not have a single shot for their king, not a voice was raised for the unfortunate monarch, and the provinces were as silent as the capital. We would expose ourselves, it was said. Frenchmen - if you find this a good reason, talk no more of your courage or admit that you misuse it!"
s/French Revolution/BLM
A good time as any to quote Joseph de Maistre:
"Every man has certain duties to perform, and the extent of these duties depends on his position in society and the extent of his means. The same action is by no means equally culpable when committed by two different men. Not to stray from our subject, the same act which results only from a mistake or a foolish characteristic in an obscure person, thrust suddenly into unlimited power, could be a foul crime in a bishop or a duke or a peer.
Indeed, some actions, which are excusable and even praiseworthy from an ordinary point of view, are fundamentally infinitely criminal. For example, if someone says, I have espoused the cause of the French Revolution in good faith, through a pure love of liberty and my country; I have believed in my soul and conscience that it would lead to the reform of abuses and to the general good, we have nothing to say in reply. But the eye of him who sees into every heart discerns the stain of sin; he discovers in a ridiculous misunderstanding, in a small puncturing of pride, in a base or criminal passion, the prime moving force behind those ambitions we wish to present to the world as noble: and for him the crime is compounded by grafting the falsehood of hypocrisy onto treason. But let us look at the nation in general.
One of the greatest possible crimes is undoubtedly an attack upon sovereignty, no other having such terrible consequences. If sovereignty resides in one man and this man falls victim to an outrage, the crime of lese-majesty augments the atrocity. But if this sovereign has not deserved his fate through any fault of his own, if his very virtues have strengthened the guilty against him, the crime is beyond description. This is the case in the death of Louis XVI; but what is important to note is that never has such a great crime had more accomplices. The death of Charles I had far fewer, even though it was possible to bring charges against him that Louis XVI did not merit. Yet many proofs were given of the most tender and courageous concern for him; even the executioner, who was obliged to obey, did not dare to make himself known. But in France, Louis XVI marched to his death in the middle of 60,000 armed men who did not have a single shot for their king, not a voice was raised for the unfortunate monarch, and the provinces were as silent as the capital. We would expose ourselves, it was said. Frenchmen - if you find this a good reason, talk no more of your courage or admit that you misuse it!"
s/French Revolution/BLM
[deleted]
[deleted]
This is history in the making. Whoever is flagging this, please kindly log off.
Trump is a bad and scary man, but one of the only good things he's done is post this tweet:
"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!"
"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!"
After he instigated his constituents? Seems to me he's only covering for his ass. Trump is a master gas-lighter, his statements are contradictory with each-other (when he does make any sense) and has so many of them, he jumps around topics and he talks and talks and talks. He's really tiring person to listen to. I bet his supporters don't really understand anything anyway.
Everyone needs to work extra hard to recognize when somebody they don't like does something good. I'm sure his subsequent and prior tweets were awful, but its legitimately helpful for him to discourage violence during such a tinderbox event. We also have:
Ivanka: “American Patriots — any security breach or disrespect to our law enforcement is unacceptable,” Ivanka Trump tweeted. “The violence must stop immediately. Please be peaceful.”
Cuccinelli called on people breaching the Capitol grounds to disperse.
“There is a proper venue to resolve grievances,” he wrote. “This is not it.”
Ivanka: “American Patriots — any security breach or disrespect to our law enforcement is unacceptable,” Ivanka Trump tweeted. “The violence must stop immediately. Please be peaceful.”
Cuccinelli called on people breaching the Capitol grounds to disperse.
“There is a proper venue to resolve grievances,” he wrote. “This is not it.”
Also Trump: “Stand back and stand by.”
A day late and a dollar short, considering that he agitated for this event in the first place.
[deleted](1)
This to a certain extent reminds me of the yellow vest protests that we had in France end of 2018, beginning of 2019.
Well it started for a somewhat different reason (a new "eco" tax on gas) but 1 of the protesters claim was that the president had only been elected by a quarter of French people and thus had no reason to stay in power. And we saw some protests turning violent with some protesters losing an eye, hit by rubber ball or gas canister (seen such comments on twitter about the US BLM protests and Trump/BLM protesters clashes). It was said that an helicopter was ready to fly the president out of Paris during the peak of the protests and some protesters managed to storm some ministry.
The social unrest for me is partly to blame on social media. We also see that with the conspiracy theorists on covid19, but people don't watch traditional media anymore. They get information from Facebook groups or some twitter feeds, spend their time commenting on the same topic, see that some other people share the same opinion and thus think a large portion of their fellow citizen share the same point of view. It just reinforces extremist views or make them become dominant within a group.
Well it started for a somewhat different reason (a new "eco" tax on gas) but 1 of the protesters claim was that the president had only been elected by a quarter of French people and thus had no reason to stay in power. And we saw some protests turning violent with some protesters losing an eye, hit by rubber ball or gas canister (seen such comments on twitter about the US BLM protests and Trump/BLM protesters clashes). It was said that an helicopter was ready to fly the president out of Paris during the peak of the protests and some protesters managed to storm some ministry.
The social unrest for me is partly to blame on social media. We also see that with the conspiracy theorists on covid19, but people don't watch traditional media anymore. They get information from Facebook groups or some twitter feeds, spend their time commenting on the same topic, see that some other people share the same opinion and thus think a large portion of their fellow citizen share the same point of view. It just reinforces extremist views or make them become dominant within a group.
Every last man or woman involved in instigating this must face the harshest possible punishment.
All I want to contribute to this is that if you think CNN is any different/better than Fox News you're part of the problem. They're both insanely biased echo chambers. It's so blatantly obvious too. After finding some propaganda to bash Trump with every single day for the past five years, they'll never once in the next four years ever report a negative story about Biden or his administration. Please, go ahead and count how many times it happens. This is something you can verify yourself! Of course the bias rabbit hole goes so much deeper than just that, but they're so blatantly, demonstrably, biased that the fact that anyone considers them relatively impartial journalism, any better than Fox News, makes me lose so much hope.
> All I want to contribute to this is that if you think CNN is any different/better than Fox News you're part of the problem. They're both insanely biased echo chambers. It's so blatantly obvious too. After finding some propaganda to bash Trump with every single day for the past five years, they'll never once in the next four years ever report a negative story about Biden or his administration. Please, go ahead and count how many times it happens. This is something you can verify yourself! Of course the bias rabbit hole goes so much deeper than just that, but they're so blatantly, demonstrably, biased that the fact that anyone considers them relatively impartial journalism, any better than Fox News, makes me lose so much hope.
What does this have to do with the storming of the capital?
What does this have to do with the storming of the capital?
This reminds of a scene in Homeland. I forgot the season/episode, but the basic plot is that a Media man who was urging supporters didn't think that these supporters would get armed and confront the police/FBI. It ended with one of these supporters killed and the man shocked as he clearly didn't think it would go that far.
In my opinion, Trump is just doing that. I don't think he would have expected armed men to join this. He was probably doing it to save face. It doesn't help that democrats are making the situation worse by calling this a coup instead of taking a calmer sentence.
Here are the possible resolution scenarios:
- The men are disbanded. No one is hurt, maybe some charges against some of these men.
- One fatal shot on one side or both sides. Sad event, but then the men are disbanded and harsher charges against some of them.
The rest is drama.
In my opinion, Trump is just doing that. I don't think he would have expected armed men to join this. He was probably doing it to save face. It doesn't help that democrats are making the situation worse by calling this a coup instead of taking a calmer sentence.
Here are the possible resolution scenarios:
- The men are disbanded. No one is hurt, maybe some charges against some of these men.
- One fatal shot on one side or both sides. Sad event, but then the men are disbanded and harsher charges against some of them.
The rest is drama.
[deleted]
'Far-Right Protestors'
So if you're a Trump supporter you're now apart of the 'Far-Right'? I wonder if this labeling by the media has led to the protests we see today.
As a side note, you never see 'Far-Left Protestors' as a title. Surely there had to have been some 'Far-Left' protests in recent memory.
So if you're a Trump supporter you're now apart of the 'Far-Right'? I wonder if this labeling by the media has led to the protests we see today.
As a side note, you never see 'Far-Left Protestors' as a title. Surely there had to have been some 'Far-Left' protests in recent memory.
[deleted]
I bet today's event's will make Chuck Schumer think twice about eliminating the filibuster.
How was it so easy to breach the building ? I see some videos of people just smashing basic windows, I really would have expected it to be more secure.
These are supposed to be some of the most secure in the US??
National Guard request was denied apparently.
Anyone remember how many were deployed during BLM protests..
America is now one of 'those' countries. All it took was 4 years. Wow.
These are supposed to be some of the most secure in the US??
National Guard request was denied apparently.
Anyone remember how many were deployed during BLM protests..
America is now one of 'those' countries. All it took was 4 years. Wow.
Legislatures in many countries are not heavily secured. That is why protestors taking over the floor of the legislature is a fairly common thing (e.g. Taiwan not too long ago). The US Capitol is a major tourist site, tours are held daily and the building is supposed to seem open to the people whom it represents. What is secured is a nearby facility to which legislators can be evacuated in emergencies.
They probably let them in because they don't want to be the one that starts shooting first.
The national guard will probably be activated at some point and if they do there could be a bloodbath.
The national guard will probably be activated at some point and if they do there could be a bloodbath.
This was completely predictable after what happened in Bunkerville, NV.
Also, some statehouses are being attacked as well:
https://twitter.com/KellyKSNT/status/1346906283421609985
https://twitter.com/KellyKSNT/status/1346906283421609985
This is nonsense. I encourage you to reword your post or delete it. I saw another tweet with a picture of the "attack" and it was like 8 people milling about.
edit: I've also read that the doors were opened to any protestors. There is no attack.
edit: I've also read that the doors were opened to any protestors. There is no attack.
unfortunately I can't reword or delete after a certain amount of time - would've done so. thanks for sharing
Any non-twitter news sources?
In Portland and Seattle this summer, cops gassed entire city blocks and started cracking skulls after a few bottles got thrown at them. But here they practically let the fascist mob walk into the capitol.
And some people say that white privilege doesn't exist...
And some people say that white privilege doesn't exist...
I'm surprised by how many people are happy with Twitter censoring the president. Censorship is not OK. It's totally disproportionate.
The freedom and well being of 320+ million people is far more important than a few buildings and a semblance of law and order. The system is harming people's mental health and the system needs to be reformed to fix this. Suppression and censorship is not going to solve anything.
The freedom and well being of 320+ million people is far more important than a few buildings and a semblance of law and order. The system is harming people's mental health and the system needs to be reformed to fix this. Suppression and censorship is not going to solve anything.
I don't understand how the same people who said we should defund the police are forcefully suggesting that we need a strong police response here? I'm not going to take any sides. All sides are so rife with hypocrisy that I just don't know what to say.
This is one of the few things it's critical to have a defense force for, but it's not what police are primarily used for.
I would love less counter-protest action in general, but it feels pretty reasonable to demand equal counter-protest action in comparison to other protests historically. What we see today is not the former.
I would love less counter-protest action in general, but it feels pretty reasonable to demand equal counter-protest action in comparison to other protests historically. What we see today is not the former.
We don't need a strong police presence. There are armed people storming the Capitol building, this is absolutely the time for a military response.
You have almost 80 million people thinking those people are correct. This is not a coup, this is a brink of civil war.
And that's healthy, I believe opposing sides should have a go at it.
And that's healthy, I believe opposing sides should have a go at it.
> But all sides are so rife with hypocrisy that I just don't know what to say.
You apparently know how to both-sides insurgents invading the capitol so you’ve got that going for you.
But here’s a hint: “defund” and “abolish” are different words with different meanings, and using one rather than the other is purposeful.
You apparently know how to both-sides insurgents invading the capitol so you’ve got that going for you.
But here’s a hint: “defund” and “abolish” are different words with different meanings, and using one rather than the other is purposeful.
There's a longstanding prison abolition movement that insists that that's what it means, and from what I've read, this whole line of thinking originated with that movement, so the distinction you're drawing is not so clear cut.
No they aren't. According to the Oxford English Dictionary:
de·fund
prevent from continuing to receive funds. "the California Legislature has defunded the Industrial Welfare Commission"
de·fund
prevent from continuing to receive funds. "the California Legislature has defunded the Industrial Welfare Commission"
How would the police continue to operate without funds?
Also the Mayor of the city who refused to allow Nat Guard to stay in DC hotels, is the person who requested the Nat Guard come to "protect" DC.
A big part of the discussion here shows how few people look beyond their own opinion for facts. I'm fortunate enough to have access to most news networks thru-out the day. I watch Fox; I watch CNN, MSN, etc. All are lying to some extent. All are shaping the "news" they feed you. CNN... is the least honest and objective. IMHO.
If the fire department came to my house right this moment, broke down the front door, and started spraying water everywhere I would be pretty upset!
If they did it when my house was on fire and I called them, I would be pretty grateful!
That's not hypocrisy, it is understanding there is a time and a place for things.
That was out of DC guard not the DC units
Re the comments about flags: the messy tug-of-war that you're seeing between upvoting, flagging, and moderating is what always happens with this kind of story, so if you're drawing any significant conclusion about HN from this one case, it's probably exaggerated: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
While I have you: before commenting, make sure you're up to date on the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. They've changed significantly in the last year. Here's the kind of discussion we want: thoughtful, curious, substantive. Here's the kind we don't want: snarky, reflexive, attacking. Make sure you can follow the core rule—"Be kind."—and its corollary, which hasn't yet made it into the doc: "If you're hot under the collar, please cool down before posting." That's in your interest for two reasons: your views will be better represented, and you'll help to preserve the all-too-fragile commons that we all depend on.
(Also, for those who haven't seen any of my annoying mentions of this yet, large threads on HN are currently paginated for performance reasons, which means you need to click More at the bottom of the thread to get to the rest of the comments—or like this:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25661474&p=2
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25661474&p=3
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25661474&p=4
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25661474&p=5)