drmanhattan16
No bio...
User ID: 640
drmanhattan16
3mo ago
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.
drmanhattan16
3mo ago
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.
drmanhattan16
3mo ago
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?
drmanhattan16
3mo ago
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).
drmanhattan16
5mo ago
...is that sarcasm? I have to assume you are at least aware that Twitch isn't only for gaming, right? I know you said you don't watch it, but the idea that Twitch or even live-streaming in general is just about gaming is trivially demonstrated as false.
drmanhattan16
5mo ago
None of them are Nazis. Easy.
I didn't say any of them were. I said moving in that direction.
drmanhattan16
5mo ago
How is it the entire breadtube ecosystem? Even in the responses to this person, there are people disagreeing with them.
If you're gonna present this as "breadtube/the left is out to get IH", you need stronger evidence than this.
drmanhattan16
8mo ago
No, I don't think that's necessarily the case. I think it's entirely plausible that, to use the examples brought up initially, Target and Bud Light were protested against because there has been a years-long attempt by right-wingers to cast LGBT people and activism as intrinsically evil. It's much easier to get people to support a boycott when you raise the moral stakes.
drmanhattan16
10mo ago
black people are criminals more often
More often compared to what? In general? Do black people constitute more than half of all criminals?
drmanhattan16
11mo ago
I misspoke, but my general point is that there's probably not a disparate impact on the political makeup of either the users or mods.
drmanhattan16
11mo ago
Sure, I'd love if they at least tried something like that. But the harshest complaint here is consistently that this is down out of intentional malice, and that's what I don't agree with.
drmanhattan16
11mo ago
Setting it in Miami isn't the worst the movie could have done, and he did keep the plot, the characters, and the language.
Right, so why can't we say something like "Making the characters look like a sampling of New York City's elite isn't the worst thing, they still kept the plot, characterizations, and language" for LOTR?
It's for cheap novelty and attention.
Why can't it be the view that race is irrelevant to character? That a black Anne Boleyn is the same in a fundamental sense as a white one?
And before someone tells me that progressives are hypocrites because they don't tolerate the whitewashing of a character, recognize that they, like all people, are more than capable of compartmentalizing their beliefs. That they do this in no way suggests that they also don't actually believe it.
drmanhattan16
11mo ago
Additionally activists tend to see these swaps as permanent and will demand black Aragorn in all future adaptations.
Sorry, where's the proof for that?
drmanhattan16
11mo ago
Romeo and Juliet is not that cohesive, imo. Language is informed by many things, you can't expect people from modern America to talk like Shakespeare's characters. If anything, it should bother people just as much that the language was not updated to reflect modern American English.
drmanhattan16
2mo ago
If that's the case, why do you insist on using the term election denier? After all, any of these other terms would mean the same thing anyway eventually, so why not use those terms and avoid my complaints? Frankly, this is nonsense. You use the term because you want to smuggle in your opinion as the default while signaling disdain to others.
Because your objection isn't the phrase, it's the meaning you perceive behind it. The demand to use another phrase for the same thing is part of another euphemistic treadmill.
Whether or not "fraud" (whatever that means) is done, if elections are done illegally in contravention to law, you cannot then claim "well, actually there was an agreed upon method which was done so you are bound to the outcome" because it's explicitly not an "agreed-upon method."
Whose law? The federal governments or any particular state's? As I said, you don't have a claim to the latter - your concern is whether or not there was fraud, not whether that election was done illegally.
First, this obligation is goofy. "Do I care about this only because I lost?" Every person is going to think and say "no."
See, that's the funny thing - Hlynka doesn't even care about this standard, nor do some people on this site, apparently. It says something that the most trivial of intellectual hurdles is apparently beyond what he requires of others. More to the point, just because someone says "I'm not doing this because I lost" doesn't mean we have to believe them. There are ways of evaluating whether someone is being rational that can find clearly irrational people even when we allow for ambiguity.
This is why this just looks like an attempted beachhead in order to expand these obligations toward your default position. What you really want is to get election losers to have to meet some growing obligation and standard to analyze "facts," which you will morph and grow into proving something to others who are hostile, like you, for what I'm sure are purely truth-seeking, rational motives. This is why I claimed it looked like you're trying to smuggle in your default position because otherwise these meek obligations you're trying to get others to agree on don't matter.
In your view, am I or am I not trying to establish a "beachhead"?
Hlynka's opinions and election "deniers" claims are disprovable; the issue is you have no facts which are good enough to convince them and no explanations good enough to poster-board over their concerns and suspicions, and frankly any person who doesn't start from your default position, about the legitimacy of the election and its outcome. If this justifies obligations, I can think of a myriad number of obligations which conflict with and undermine your default position assumption.
How can they be disproven when in the same breath, I'm told that fraud is undetectable, but we also know it must have occurred? If the former is true, then you can't deny the possibility of no fraud. If the latter is true, then it's disprovable, but you have to provide evidence of it. Yet, I see multiple people using the former as their justification for the latter. You have to pick one and stick with it, no jumping between stances when it suits you. (I mean "you" in the general sense, not just you specifically).
Moreover, if someone wants to come to the conclusion that we fundamentally cannot know, based on facts, whether the election was stolen or not, then it's very curious how this never comes accompanied with a suggestion for which outcome is more likely: stolen election or not. I understand why this happens, but it's very telling that Hlynka and those who agree with him on this issue don't seem to care about evaluating what their real objection to the election actually is.
This is why Hlynka harps on this not being the correct default position because it won't convince losers whenever anything slightly suspicious happens.
And it doubly won't convince them if their real objection is the outcome of the election, not its integrity.
But Hlynka isn't interested in asking himself or others if that's actually the case. What a shame.
drmanhattan16
3mo ago
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.
drmanhattan16
3mo ago
Man, it's a good thing Yassine isn't asking for those in the first place, huh?
drmanhattan16
3mo ago
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?
drmanhattan16
3mo ago
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.
drmanhattan16
3mo ago
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?
drmanhattan16
3mo ago
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?
drmanhattan16
3mo ago
But it’s also the fruit of the Long March Through the Institutions.
I know nothing about the NFL and its cultural context. That said, this phrase is typically meant to imply that there was some kind of anti-democratic, inorganic effort by leftists (meaning Marxist, not just progressive or necessarily radical) to take over the NFL. I would like to see some proof of this sort of thing. A cursory search of the issue with the helmets and endzones saying "stop racism" or other anti-racist slogans suggests this happened in 2021. You don't need much "Long Marching" to make an institution think that it might get them some positive attention if they were to do this while not alienating enough people who would disagree.
drmanhattan16
5mo ago
The only thing predictable is how you leapt to idea that I was doing the "it's not happening, but if it is, he deserves it" meme. This is behavior that must be downloadable from somewhere, it's so rote and repetitive. No one can criticize a person you like in good faith, can they? No, they must be part of a left-wing conspiracy.
More to the point, that thread isn't proof of your claim. You didn't argue that they thought he was a Nazi, you argued that they were, in concert, coming after him before the plagiarism accusation.
drmanhattan16
5mo ago
I didn't say you couldn't criticize it, I read your message as asking why anyone was calling him a Nazi. I was just explaining that, that's all.
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.
More options
Context Copy link