drmanhattan16
No bio...
User ID: 640
drmanhattan16
1yr ago
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.
drmanhattan16
1yr ago
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.
drmanhattan16
1yr 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
1yr 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
1yr 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
1yr 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
1yr 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
1yr 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
1yr 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
1yr 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
2yr 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
2yr ago
That sounds like a Russel conjugation. "I show reality as it is, you show a vulgar political display." Hardly that convincing, nor do I think it requires a hatred of white consumers.
Race matters in Tolkein in a way that white progressives, by virtue of their white upbringings, simply cannot grasp. Ignorance is not malice.
drmanhattan16
2yr ago
Why would I? I'm not the one making the claim about them.
drmanhattan16
2yr ago
Modern gender theory is nonsense.
As opposed to traditional gender theory?
Men are men, women are women, don’t make it complicated.
Sure. What's a man? What's a woman?
drmanhattan16
2yr ago
The problem with Reddit's business model is that it relies on massive amounts of volunteer labor (subreddit moderators). Moderators are unpaid, so these positions will be filled by people who value power and status over money, i.e. progressive activists.
How exactly do you know their political alignment and level of engagement?
drmanhattan16
2yr ago
Those guys live, eat, breath, and shit classified information for 4 to 8 years, the changeover is chaotic and shit slips through.
It's not a new risk nor do we lack the resources to handle it cleanly. Why don't they have people making sure it's secure? Trump doesn't need to handle it personally, there are probably a dozen people he could get instructions from or fob them off to his staff.
I can forgive a college student for not having an immaculate room. People with money and people to make things happen correctly don't have that excuse.
drmanhattan16
2yr ago
We know they wanted to do it, the question is why they want to. If they were being totally honest, was their conscious and major driving reason that they found the language objectionable? Or, as I suspect, were they doing this in a way to generate attention by surfing the line?
drmanhattan16
2yr ago
It was good
TG:M was decent at best.
drmanhattan16
2yr ago
You must be from another universe's themotte.org, because you're referring to some comment not present in this thread that would suggest my motivation is to paint Twitter's staff as Trump supporters by a large percentage. I invite you to demonstrate what I've said that would in any way support your argument because I can tell for a fact you didn't read any of my comments, and if you did, you assigned maximum uncharitability to them.
drmanhattan16
2yr ago
There could have been a vocal minority. We don't know because the slack logs aren't available for us to peruse. There was also pushback from the TTS team and a few others who didn't see the tweets as violating any rules.
drmanhattan16
2yr ago
He is. We just can't forget that "modal" isn't shifted much by the rioters.
drmanhattan16
2yr ago
Activist at Twitter were on Team Biden, and their decisions were biased to the core.
Wait just a moment. From what Taibbi said, the key role was played by Vijaya Gadde. What's the proof she's a Biden supporter?
drmanhattan16
2yr ago
What's your proof?
drmanhattan16
2yr ago
Eyeballing it, it looks like it went from 14/100k to 18/100k. 30%, yes, but doesn't seem that big overall.
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.
More options
Context Copy link