TheAntipopulist
Voltaire's Viceroy
No bio...
User ID: 373
Your comment is a pretty good example of why I've mostly stopped trying to debate people who claim election fraud. It goes something like this
Them: "There was widespread fraud in this election! "
Me: "There's not really any compelling evidence to that effect..."
Them: "Well, OK, but do you really trust them not to commit fraud in some other way? As proof, here's a laundry list of sins my outgroup has committed to prove how biased they are..."
Your comment isn't a perfect analog but it's pretty close. Most specific claims crumble into a generalized disdain of the outgroup upon deeper scrutiny.
But it was “weird” and we shouldn’t be encouraging “weird” elections. We used to count elections within hours of the polls closing. Why can’t we do that again?
Part of this was terrible mail-in voting rules where they only started counting long after the votes had come in, and part of it was an illusion since individual states have dragged their counting in almost every election, it just didn't matter since the elections weren't that close in the first place, so nobody really cared if Obama won Indiana in 2008 on election night since it wouldn't have made a difference.
But I generally agree that elections should be counted a lot faster. It was clear that many on the right fringe saw the delayed count as dead-to-rights evidence that the Deep State (or whoever) was rigging things and were just playing for time. States should do everything in their power to ensure the election can be confidently called within a day.
Israel hasn't been able to impose its will because the conflict is ultimately a fight over PR. Western democracies "hold themselves to a higher standard" (or "hamstring themselves", depending on your POV) by refusing to do population transfers that autocracies do routinely. Pakistan recently announced it was deporting 2 million Afghans and nobody cared. Azerbaijan just ethnically cleansed Nagorno Karabakh and there was barely a peep. But if Israel threatens to do something similar to the West Bank, the entire world freaks out. Palestinians have long recognized this double-standard and have maximally abused it by being very plugged-in to places like the NYT and other outlets.
Not that Jews as a whole are entirely blameless in this regard, as many of the Diaspora have been key players in the social justice crusades. The double game that organizations like the ADL play is mind-boggling.
To me the issue that erodes that trust is that the official government structures never bothered to look into the claims that such fraud might have happened
They did though, there were plenty of state level election officials like Raffensperger who went through point by point on at least some of the issues, and many claims literally had their day in court were addressed by the courts. A big problem though was that the election fraud claims were a massive gish-gallop so it was hard both to refute everything, and to take the overall claims of fraud seriously. The people claiming fraud really should have coalesced around one or two of their strongest allegations that 1) were well-evidenced, and 2) could have made a material impact in the results for at least one state.
If you look at the ability to produce arms and materiel, NATO is actually the loser when compared to Russia and Russia's allies (China, Iran, North Korea etc). Comparing NATO to Russia alone isn't really that useful anyway, given that this is a conflict between a NATO proxy and Russia, as opposed to all out war between all of NATO and Russia alone.
The big point here would be China, but since China isn't overtly sending arms to Russia it's a non-factor for this analysis. NATO or even just the EU completely trounce Russia + Iran + NK in terms of manufacturing output, but the problem is political will. You're correct that most people in the West don't really see the war as all that important, which is why the will isn't there.
I disagree - the west isn't actually able to give Ukraine enough military support to change the ultimate outcome of the conflict. They're currently running out of Ukrainians (you don't start conscripting women and 17 year olds if you have a choice) and they're continuing to run out of territory too. If you're interested in an article that gets my perspective on the conflict across fairly accurately, I recommend https://www.ecosophia.net/notes-on-stormtrooper-syndrome/
The arguments saying Ukraine will run out of people are just as silly as the Western articles that predicted that Russia would run out of tanks or missiles. Both types of analyses ignore the fact that new people/tanks/missiles are maturing/convalescing or being produced constantly. There's certainly an argument to be made that Ukraine digging deeper into it's manpower pool will lead to problems in force quality, like how Russia could become production-constrained in terms of certain types of equipment. But this will simply be a force-(de)multiplier that interacts with other strengths and weaknesses. It's silly to think it will be decisive by itself. Most casualty estimates from credible sources have actually been fairly low for a conventional war that's been going on for nearly 2 years.
My point wasn't that Afghanistan is identical to Ukraine, it was that an analysis that says "big country wins vs small country" is too limited.
My point wasn't that Afghanistan is identical to Ukraine, it was that an analysis that says "big country wins vs small country" is too limited.
One point that I think bears mentioning more often is that there is a back-channel game at play here: the US probably could fund or supply this war itself, but has been trying to pressure (Western) Europe into properly funding it's own defense.
I wish this was the case, but everything I've read and heard from people in the USFG is that US military planners are genuinely worried about preparedness against China, which makes sense since the US defense-industrial base has been a smoldering crater for the past decade or so. That, and polarization makes it hard to get stuff through Congress now.
Really, Europe should be shouldering the vast majority of the burden for Ukraine. It's more important to them than it is to us for reasons of simple proximity. On the flip side, it's pretty much a foregone conclusion that Europe will be completely irrelevant (beyond mostly toothless sanctions) if a hot war breaks out over Taiwan, so the US will basically be forced to play the primary role there. Europe certainly has the potential to shoulder the Ukraine issue themselves, and it wouldn't even be that difficult. Yet it's been nearly two years and the entirety of the EU is getting lapped by North Korea in terms of artillery shells contributed. It's farcical.
(the massive nuclear power is going to defeat the small economic backwater immediately adjacent to and financially dependent upon it)
You mean like how the USSR and the US won against Afghanistan?
It's easy to flip this too and say the combined economic output of NATO vs Russia means Russia is destined to lose. That would be a similarly sophomoric analysis.
After Russia started gearing up for a long war and China signaled it didn't want to give overt military support to Russia, it became an almost certainty that the war would be determined by how much military support the West was willing to give to Ukraine. That, and the outside possibility of a black swan event probably from the Russian side.
Nothing about Kissinger was particularly impressive apart from his longevity and his post-tenure PR team. He's galactically overestimated by both his proponents and his critics. He just didn't do that much that any other normal StateSec wouldn't have done.
But then the prosecution would follow with the countless previous times where the US didn't get their way
The US DID get it's way, since Germany shut down the pipeline.
tremendously helps the US economically
Natural gas is a tiny fraction of the US economy, and still nearly half of all exports are going to Mexico/Canada. US gas is unlikely to be better than a temporary stop-gap since the mechanics of LNG mean it will lose economically in the medium and long term to simple piped gas.
Vote counts are definitely not hidden for a week, at least on most posts.
signal to the trolls
If you define troll as "genuine rulebreaker", then reporting is a better option
If you define troll as "person who disagrees with me", then "signalling" should really be done with a proper response.
Ratioing on Twitter takes a significantly larger amount of effort than a simple downvote and requires lots of participation to distinguish it from random noise. The Motte also has rules against written downvotes so that would make it an even bigger hurdle.
Don't worry, I downvoted your reply as well.
it's interesting sometimes to see the tally of up and down votes. Highlights contentiousness in an interesting way
Could still be done indirectly by looking at upvotes on original post, and upvotes on the replies.
Downvotes don't refute BS to any meaningful degree. Most trivial BS can be refuted by knowing basic fallacies, and prolific BS'ers will get modded for low-quality posts.
Downvotes in practice are just like people writing "You're wrong" without elaboration.
Transforming downvotes into upvotes on replies is something I've seen, but that seems like a good change to me. I've not seen the downvotes go to low-quality posts, at least not once a few higher quality posts have been made.
I think this forum should disable/remove the downvote button. It's a legacy holdover from Reddit but it really doesn't fit the theme of the motte. Downvoting increases the intensity of heat while doing little for light. Humans are hard-wired to care about the popularity of their ideas, even people very low on the agreeableness spectrum (which I'm sure accounts for the majority of posters here). People who are routinely downvoted are much less likely to post, intensifying the echo chamber effect.
If a post breaks the rules, reporting it is still the best solution.
If a post is just using bad logic, it's much better to refute that logic with a response than to downvote. There's nothing I find quite as aggravating as making (what I think is) a good point, only to be downvoted with no responses. This doesn't happen nearly as often on this forum as it does on Reddit, but it's still a nuisance when it does occur.
Downvoted while correct. This forum should really take out the downvote button entirely since it's just a "boo outgroup" button.
they specifically threatened to do it before the fact.
This is flatly incorrect. The US threatened to "shut it down" if Russia invaded, which was in reference to a secret agreement with Germany that the US would end sanctions on the pipeline if they promised to end it if an invasion happened. That agreement got invoked. The pipeline got bombed afterwards.
My thoughts exactly. Creche is only a word I've ever heard from video games. First from Black and White like 20 years ago, and more recently from BG3.
Yes, it appears French exists in the mythical land of Ireland.
For starters, colonialism has two major cleavages: settler-colonies (e.g. USA, Canada, Australia, etc.) and old-fashioned imperialism (e.g. most of Africa, Latin America). Most criticism of colonialism is of the latter portion, whereas Israel more closely resembles the former. Settler colonies are harder to criticize because they've tended to have fairly good outcomes. At most you could criticize what they did to the natives they displaced decades/centuries ago, but few people argue that the USA should "give back the land" to the natives, which is functionally what Palestinians are demanding in Israel's case.
Second, while many Jews have white skin, most people would say they're culturally and obviously religiously distinct from whites in a number of ways.
I would go into more detail, but looking at your posting history I'm not sure it's justified. I'm happy to dive in more if you respond though!
Is it rational to care or even know about propaganda in otherwise good media?
Responding to this statement directly, I think the answer is "obviously yes". Even if it's not pervasive or all-encompassing, it still impacts society by reinforcing the notion of what's acceptable, who's on top, etc. Symbolic cultural statements push the Overton window. It goes like this:
Motte: Symbolism can be ignored if you don't focus on it too much.
Bailey: I'm creating an excuse for this symbolism because I like it and agree with it.
A recent example was Starfield having pronoun selection in the character creation screen. Reddit deployed the usual motte and bailey in the comments, but would almost certainly have had a much different reaction if it was symbolism they disagreed with, like "it's OK to be white".
(Not saying you're personally guilty of the bailey here by genuinely asking the question, but it's clear many people are on other sites like Reddit.)
Depends on what you mean by "normie" here. If it's "centrist", then perhaps. If it's the median Democrat, though, that's much more questionable. Remember that normies naturally gravitate towards news orgs that flatter their preconceptions, so they're much more likely to see crying Palestinian children than deranged leftists holding "gas the Jews" signs.
The far left is very heterogenous, but the US's automatic coalition progress means communist tankies and anarchists are indeed lumped together. They'll both either vote for the Democrats, or waste their votes by staying home or voting for a fringe leftist.

OK, if you want to quibble about what "had their day in court" means, sure, my statement would be more accurate if it read as "were addressed by the courts" (before being dropped/denied/withdrawn).
I'd then turn around and say you're rewriting history by implying these cases didn't get a similar legal treatment to any other lawsuit.
More options
Context Copy link