@netstack's banner p

netstack

Texas is freedom land

9 followers   follows 3 users  
joined 2022 September 05 17:27:40 UTC

				

User ID: 647

netstack

Texas is freedom land

9 followers   follows 3 users   joined 2022 September 05 17:27:40 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 647

Still looks pretty mystified to me.

But perhaps, without the waffle, there would be nothing left at all?

Fractional bans work! I did it once when I accidentally submitted a permanent with reason ”3” instead of a 3 day ban. I caught it after a few hours, and replaced it with a 2.7 hour ban for time served.

So I guess it could be arbitrarily short.

More effort and evidence than this, please.

Less of the booing, please.

That’s not a Gish gallop.

At worst, jkf is defending a different position than sliders. Call it sanewashing, or maybe distributed motte-and-bailey?

mass mail-in voting is considered fraud by historic democratic principles

I disagree. At worst, by weakening the secret ballot, it makes more opportunities for fraud. That’s different.

Regardless, to get from there to “Trump wins in a landslide,” you have to have a chain of beliefs.

  1. MMIV allowed more fraud.
  2. More fraud gave an advantage to Democrats.
  3. Such an advantage was needed to overcome Trump’s natural lead.

Sure, #1 seems obviously true. But proponents have consistently failed to bring evidence for #2 or #3. Where are the legions of dead or duplicate voters? The confessions of Democrat strongmen who went door to door coercing Biden votes? The sob stories from would-have-been Trump voters?

If the Democrats successfully weaponized MMIV, there should be more evidence. Same goes for Trump’s hypothetical lead. Polling (then or now) doesn’t suggest that he has massive support. Either there is a powerful conspiracy hiding and weakening the evidence, or it doesn’t really exist.

The average voter hasn’t committed fraud. He also knows that his neighbors and teammates haven’t committed fraud, haven’t talked about the option, haven’t been visited by team officials in the dead of night. He correctly concludes that his team is not benefiting from fraud. He fails to extend this conclusion to everyone else.

Yeah, I think your question about Wisconsin is a good way to clarify.

I put my own objection to sliders here. “Fraud was plausible” is very easy to defend. “Fraud changed the result,” not so much.

sweet spot

To me, that implies it’ll get worse from here. How so?

Or did you mean that it’s just now crested the hill of being “worth it”?

Please refrain from psychoanalyzing other commenters. Or genetically analyzing them.

  • -11

Please don’t speak for other posters.

If you think functor is being dishonest, either press him on it directly and politely, or move on. This sort of speculation isn’t helpful.

What’s your evidence that they aren’t actually trying to solve the homeless problem?

plenty of opportunities for employment

In an economy with no primary or secondary sector, a customer base selected for instability, and a constant brain drain of anyone who gets their lives together?

Judging by the BLS table, you’d have to throw out something like 75% of U.S. jobs. The resulting community would look much, much worse. Forget coercing the inmates—you’ll have a hell of a time hiring staff for this gulag.

Yes and no.

seems motivated by a desire to guard your ego

Where does the conversation go from there? It’s immediately dragged down, because in addition to making it personal, this remark is unfalsifiable. BC can say “nuh uh,” and A can double down, but nothing good is likely to come of it.

Responding on the merits is best. Questioning motives is not recommended, but can be done with tact. I have yet to see someone tactfully and respectfully accuse another user of having a fragile ego.

every Negress prosecutor on the East Coast

This kind of generalization is definitely in the “more heat than light” category.

Welcome to the motte!

Please use this one-day waiting period to read the rules in our sidebar. Especially those about the rest of the internet and, per your other comment, cheap shots.

:(

You are correct; let this be your first warning.

Verification is the difference between journalism and gossip. I think once you play at the former, you should be held to a higher standard than a random stranger. Once her attempt at verification failed, a journalist would have had a duty not to publish. The fact that LoTT did, regardless, is a tidy rebuttal to anyone treating it as hard-hitting investigative journalism.

Why are credentialed journalists held to a higher standard? It’s not out of respect for the credential.

LoTT has clearly been assigned more resources and more influence than random shitposters. It’s sensible to expect higher standards for the same reasons.

Uh…no.

It’s because Twitter journalism is even more decoupled from consequences than regular journalism.

If every single thing she reported was a lie, how would you know?

Yeah, it would be reasonable for a normal person to check the original sources before believing and broadcasting them.

I don't know where you're drawing the line.

Her Twitter bio proudly claims to be a "Media/News Company," and the testimonials on her About page includes a glowing review of her journalism by Matt Walsh. Wait, does he count as a journalist?

There are talk show appearances and shout outs from the former President. Chats with other culture war luminaries. Honorary school board appointments (?!). Those aren't normal suburban-mom activities. She is clearly running a brand.

But that's kind of beside the point. I can't believe that one needs credentials or courses to ask "is what I'm about to say true?" I also don't believe for a moment that's the main motive for TW critics. He certainly doesn't get to deploy a similar defense!

Yes! Yes, and as far as I know, he has met this bar. If someone bothered to hoax him, and he took the bait, I think that would look badly on him. I certainly wouldn't say, "way to go, you hoaxed a shitposter."

Right. Like asking “why are you complaining about John Oliver? He’s just a comedian,” except more extreme, because social media is even less anchored to professional reputations. I’m sure it’s deployed at full scale on left-wing Twitter; we just don’t see as much of that shared here.

The latter is probably correct, too. I think she’s on a better epistemic ground than the Alex Jones types.

His odds of winning the election just got a lot better.

I want to agree with @johnfabian that (mainstream) Democrats are going to get less strident. There's no angle, no way to try blaming the victim here. Not without a much more radical brand.

God. I was just at the gun store this morning. If this was an AR--and it probably was--the market is going to pucker up again.