@drmanhattan16's banner p

drmanhattan16


				

				

				
2 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 17:01:12 UTC

				

User ID: 640

drmanhattan16


				
				
				

				
2 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 05 17:01:12 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 640

Yes, yes, there are these two tribes, but WHY do these tribes hate each so much? It seems obvious to me that the red tribe is currently on the defensive, and so fights on out of a spirit of plucky individualism/puerile defiance (you choose). They could just stop, but that would amount to a capitulation.

You are missing why they are fighting in the first place. This is not a case of "I know I'm wrong, I'm just arguing to piss you off", the red tribe holds fundamental moral values. The most basic of oughts is that one ought to promote what one deems moral. Why wouldn't they fight against someone promoting something they don't think is moral?

But the blue tribe's motivation is harder for me to explain to myself. Why do they hate the red tribe so much? One could point back to Trump and say "Look at all the damage the red tribe did!" but Trump himself seems to have been the red tribe lashing out at blue tribe condescension/scorn.

This is again missing the point. You don't need an explanation for why this particular culture played out the way it did to understand 90% of it. The Blue Tribe holds different values and will fight for its morality, simple as that.

Humans set their standards by their environment, which is why nerds and jocks will self-segregate despite the countless things that make them similar. You cannot point to the far group(s) and ask why a tribe doesn't organize with the other tribe against the remote tribe, it's very rarely relevant. Failure to understand this is bizarre given that you've read SSC's Outgroup piece.

It appears that the Blue Tribe today does not accuse the red tribe of anything specific at all

This is so blind to anything the Blue Tribe says that I have to seriously consider if you are just casually speculating with no research on what either side alleges. The Blue Tribe accuses the Red Tribe of a whole host of things, which can largely be grouped into two categories: bigotry (racism, homophobia, transphobia, etc.) and irrationality (in particular, deriving views based on "common sense" and religious beliefs).

That's not what the lawsuit alleged. It said that hosts were allowed to make claims that executives believed were false, and that guests were brought on and made claims that the hosts believed were false.

Okay, yeah, this is the case I was thinking of. I recall going through the evidence brought against them and I found it fairly convincing that Fox had no reason to believe what they were peddling and also didn't believe it themselves.

The actual proof can be found in the pdf at the bottom of this article. It's 192 pages, but it's either screenshots that can quickly be read or large font question-answer segments. I think it clearly indicates that the people at Fox didn't believe what they were saying, because their own research team was telling them there wasn't any evidence, and it notes that Fox believed executives had an obligation to correct people from stating falsehoods on their own network.

Ultimately, what did Fox in wasn't the view that the election was stolen. It was not believing their own public statements.

I'm not shaming anyone. My initial comment was out of confusion, but I have no problem with people deciding even their voice is too much to risk. Moreover, not every part of one's identity is the same. If I show you a picture of my hand, you'll discover my race, but showing my face would be far more personal and could lead far easier to identification.

We're talking about what has to be necessarily revealed on Yassine's podcast. Voice is necessary simply because people have to speak on a podcast, the information you're talking about wouldn't be necessary unless Yassine was insisting on identifying people to that level.

Man, it's a good thing Yassine isn't asking for those in the first place, huh?

I'm not convinced that anyone who goes onto the podcast is in serious danger of losing their jobs or having their families harassed in two decades time or even further into the future. Even if they happen to be election truthers.

Am I misremembering, or was this the one in which Fox was shown to have peddled the idea that Dominion's voting machines were rigged but not even the hosts saying it believed what they were saying?

I think part of the point is, people will have to come out and identify as election deniers. The next thing, they're being accused of supporting the Jan 6th coup, wanting to overthrow the legitimate government, and being a fully-signed up fascist.

There's plenty of election deniers who openly admit to it and would probably have no problem with it even in conversations with strangers. What has happened to them that is bad?

There's also a possibility that some of the snow which hits my tongue was irradiated and I end up slowly consuming enough radioactive material to kill me. We don't take risk by itself as our sole factor. At the end of the day, I think the chances of someone maliciously using a voice recording from someone here is low enough that going on the podcast isn't an issue.

Meanwhile they get a potential embarrassment and have to expose their identity.

Huh? You're talking about having to expose their voices? I don't think that really constitutes "expose their identity".

I recognize you didn't give a "should", but Hlynka very much would agree with the absurd position I detailed in my previous comment. That's his position, unless he draws some line based on how many people actually disagree.

Consider an unopened box. You and I agree that whatever is inside, we will share equally between ourselves. We open it, and it happens to be your favorite candy bar. I go to split it equally, but you grab one side of it and insist that actually, you want the whole thing and I should re-negotiate over it.

Would you say you are acting in bad faith?

I meant that you'd find spaces open to the discussion. Yes, some might object on the old grounds of disenfranchising certain voter groups, but from what I can tell, there's a whole host of things being alleged as insecure/improper which don't have anything to do with letting people vote. You can always start there.

It's not representative of the left, but you can always try /r/Destiny. They have plenty of people who will argue seriously with you on the topic.

Who is objecting to that on the "2020 wasn't stolen" side? Put simply, if you open your argument with "I don't think 2020 was stolen, but here are cases where we need to tighten election security", I think you'd find earnest discussion in even the most pro-Biden/left-wing spaces.

In other words, no matter how fair an election might be that both sides had previously agreed to, the loser should be catered to with negotiations and compromises simply because they refuse to accept the outcome.

I reject that idea entirely. If Trump supporters and other election truthers need to have refuges from the rest of the American nation, I'm willing to accommodate that, but I'm not going to accept their claim that they just have a principled concern about election security.

Because "Elections are by their nature a contested environment"

So is capitalism. I don't see that getting in the way of two competing rational capitalists being unable to agree to facts.

Because "the purpose of an election is not to produce a "true" or "accurate" result. It is to produce a clear result that the candidates (and their voters) can accept as legitimate, including the ones who lost."

You misunderstood what I was saying. I wasn't arguing about why we have elections, I was arguing about how we understand if the procedure/process was followed conditional on our agreement to such a process. Basically, I reject the notion that the election process' outcome doesn't need to be truthful just because the real contention is the policies both sides want.

Why would it be better? It's a flat-out rejection of the idea that the truth should inform action. I have no problem with litigation over the facts of the 2020 election, but the frustrating part is that the election truthers don't ever give me confidence that they care about the truth for its own sake, but more because they think it's impossible Trump could have lost in the first place.

Perhaps this is the Leviathan-shaped hole in the discourse rearing it's ugly head again, but "negotiations over policy" (or rather who gets to set that policy) is exactly what an election is, is it not?

No, my point is that you and anyone else who takes this viewpoint is essentially claiming that you don't care about proof over whether the election was stolen in the first place. You just want a guarantee that your policies are enacted.

Suppose the Democrats were to offer a guarantee that they'd quash any attempt at enacting laws which would shift the government's stance to be more socially progressive in exchange for Republicans (including the MAGA ones) never bringing up the 2020 election again, and that this would hold for the next 10 years. God himself comes down and says they're not lying about what they'll do. In this scenario, I would expect people complaining about the election losers to largely come down against this deal on principle. Instead, I suspect the losers would actually, seriously debate if they should accept.

I agree. But if you want to go down the route of saying the losers are refusing to be rational because that would cost them energy and momentum vs. the winners who don't, then just say that.

How far back does this trend of "marriage -> more right-wing" go for women? A century? Two centuries?

That means you don't really even want elections, right? You just want negotiations over policy. Because if the losers, as I suspect, are a bit more motivated by losing than they claim to be, then no amount of proof would work because they don't care about proof in the first place.

If the claim in court, where you do need to be very specific, was that people weren't allowed in, but they were and just kept far away, then the claim should reflect that, right?

If you want a peaceful transition of power, you need to be able to convince the losers that they lost fairly and that they have more to gain by continuing to work within the system than they have to lose by checking out of it or blowing it up.

Is there a responsibility, in your view, for the losers to examine if their real objection might not be principled, but literally over just losing?

A lot has been written on how marriage and long term relationships, at least in the Anglo-saxon contest, move women right from the left.

I must have missed these discussions, because I've never seen this as far as I recall. How does this argument work?

If this happen, the consequence is that people following the rightists moral framework will never find refuge in mainstream family-making society

No, that's not necessarily the case. More left-wing women getting married and having children doesn't have an obvious bearing on whether right-wing women are doing the same.

Also, while I am familiar with the argument that gay marriage harmed the institution of marriage, I have never heard anyone argue that this marriage institution ever required holding right-wing social views on things unrelated to it. What prevents a right-wing woman from thinking Palestinians don't deserve what Israel does to them?

From your report's summary:

There was no evidence of widespread voter fraud. In all likelihood, more eligible voters cast ballots for Joe Biden than Donald Trump. We found little direct evidence of fraud, and for the most part, an analysis of the results and voting patterns does not give rise to an inference of fraud.

Seems like this is the key takeaway for anyone.

Is your ultimate point that elections have security issues, or that the 2020 election was actually stolen from Trump? People who want to argue the first are free to do so, I'm open to the idea that we can tighten election security, especially for state and local elections (where more serious claims appear to be made).