ymeskhout
4mo ago
Thanks for clearing it up, what edits should I make to my post to avoid giving other people the same wrong impression?
If there are no other comparable examples, then it's literally impossible to assert that Ray Epps was treated "unusually". I don't agree that there are no comparable examples, because I don't believe it's reasonable to expect the precision of a randomized controlled trial to ascertain how unusual a defendant's treatment is. So while we can't find a Ray Epps clone, it's still fair game to examine individuals who are close enough.
I looked some more and wish I found out about Ali Alexander earlier. He posted a video on January 7th saying "I did call for people to enter the US Capitol" and later during a livestream "I started a riot for the sitting president of the United States" (though he also admitted he's prone to exaggeration and hyperbole). He was never charged with a crime. A judge even examined his conduct and dismissed him from a civil lawsuit brought by Capitol Police officers because the judge ruled his speech did not rise to the level of incitement. Do you believe this guy is comparable enough to Ray Epps? Compared to Alexander, Epps was treated harshly.
There's more people who called for occupying the Capitol ahead of J6, like Matt Bracken who said "we will only be saved by millions of Americans moving to Washington, occupying the entire area—if necessary, storming right into the Capitol. You know, we know the rules of engagement: If you have enough people, you can push down any kind of a fence or a wall." I don't know if Bracken was ever on site so it's not directly comparable to Epps, but Bracken never being charged with a crime is one more data point on the comparison board.
I made a bird's eye view comparison by contrasting Epps to all other J6 defendants and nothing stood out. I then tried to make a more direct comparison to individual cases and nothing stands out there either. So overall I see no reason to believe that Ray Epps was treated with unusual anything. Do you think that's an unreasonable conclusion?
ymeskhout
4mo ago
@ArjinFerman also
I don't want any ambiguity here, I never said or implied that Alex Jones "would do something like this" (I still don't know what is the 'something' you're referring to here), I never spoke of potential or possibilities about his conduct. The reason he came to mind is because I was trying to think of individuals comparable to Epps, and I first did so by deconstructing Epps's conduct into "He was on Capitol Grounds but did not enter, but encouraged others to enter". I figured finding someone who was caught on tape precisely asking people to enter was going to be a challenge, so I abstracted the latter factor into a more generalized "whipped up crowd to head towards the Capitol" to broaden the search. Alex Jones came to mind because he was there and I remembered him leading a "1776!" chant with a crowd. It's not going to be a perfect comparison, but I'm trying to do the work SlowBoy hasn't by proactively looking for individuals to compare Epps against, and I'm more than open to other suggestions.
ymeskhout
9mo ago
Absent further information my best guess is that it's the defensive version of Arguments As Soldiers. The concern is that a concession on any ground, no matter how trivial, will threaten to collapse the entire front. Assuming I'm describing the dynamics here accurately, I find the fear very puzzling because it's so easily remedied by just a tiny bit of nuance. I also have to admit I start suspecting insecurity at play here regarding how strong one's convictions are, with the coping mechanism being latching onto as many arguments as possible (no matter how bad some might be).
ymeskhout
1yr ago
I apologize, I realize now that I misread your response. I didn't realize that your "Don't restart counting..." was a direct response to my "What do you wish was done differently?" and I lost the conversation thread in between checking notifications.
I understand that Powell is disfavored nowadays but she remains relevant as a showcase for the intense credulity many showcased at the time (including at the highest level of government). I recognize her existence is inconvenient for those who wish to believe election fraud allegations were made in good faith, but it's nevertheless still reality. It's not a weakman if it was enthusiastically endorsed at the time. The water main break story was first publicized by Giuliani claiming they were pulling out suitcases of ballots. Giuliani is also an example of somehow displaying intense credulity (or at least motivated reasoning). The water main break story keeps getting replayed and I still don't understand what the core claim is, aside from just vaguely generating smoke. @zeke5123 said "still hasn’t been fully explained" but I genuinely have no idea which part is missing, which is why my questions were about the investigation and how it could've been done differently.
I don't understand why you are being so vague. The uncharitable explanation is that you wish to avoid having your opinion scrutinized. So:
Which one are you referring to and why didn't it pass muster? What do you wish was done differently?
ymeskhout
1yr ago
Being suppressed by a private entity and defamation claims are not governed by the same legal standard so no, truth would not be a defense to suppression. I don't understand the rest of your post.
ymeskhout
1yr ago
I think that would be a reasonable assumption, yes. Are you aware of any instances where this happened?
Most of what you lay out are reasonable concerns. I wouldn't have much criticism if that's where the concerns stopped, but the 2020 stolen election advocates made claims much more specific than just "fraud is possible". Consider the parallel to the "The Dragon in My Garage" from Carl Sagan. There's a dragon in my garage, but you can't ask to see it because it's invisible, and you can't check for breathing sounds because it's silent, and you can't ask to throw flour on it because it's not corporeal, and so on.
Let's say that substantial election fraud in fact happened, does that mean that both parties engaged in it and so it's a wash in the end? No, because said fraud specifically favored one candidate. Ok does that mean that the safeguards we have to prevent this kind of widespread fraud (judges, election officials, journalists, etc.) were able to uncover it? No, because for some reason they all decided to uniformly abdicate their duty. And so forth. The problem is that each successive step gets increasingly implausible and also indistinguishable from just someone who is coming up with rationalizations for why their theory can't be falsified, and so long as they can come up for an excuse, they can remain within the dais of "sure seems fishy".
ymeskhout
1yr ago
you really threw out Italian satellites as a bailey? How can you do that in any good faith discussion?
As you point out, Mark Meadows specifically asked the DOJ to investigate the claim of Italian satellites changing the election outcome. Why, specifically, do you think it's bad faith for me to bring up what a top level Trump official earnestly asked the investigative arm of the US government to investigate? My assumption is that people get upset when I bring up the Italian satellite theory because it's especially embarrassing and impossible to hand-wave away as just the work of some fringe crazies given the actors involved. You can prove me wrong of course: there are and were so many theories of election fraud, you can specify what filters that, if met, you'd agree makes those theories fair game to criticism. Can you do that?
ymeskhout
1yr ago
Uneven application of the law is always a fair concern. What evidence would you need to see before you'd agree it's no longer a concern? Keep in mind that while defamation law does not apply to opinions, discerning between fact and opinion can often be a tough call.
ymeskhout
1yr ago
Sure, Carlson did indeed openly express some skepticism about Powell's theories. Did you happen to notice that Carlson was not the only person mentioned? Dobbs in particular is probably the network's biggest liability.
ymeskhout
1yr ago
Well I don't know Bobulinski and presumably neither do you, so I'm wondering why exactly you find him to be credible. One possible explanation is that Bobulinski is apparently still very upset with Jim and Hunter Biden over a deal he missed out on. He said himself the two brothers "defrauded" him of at least $5 million. This seems like good evidence he's at least partly motivated by payback. The Hunter Laptop saga hasn't really delivered and people lost interest over the years, which means right-wing pundits like Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity are especially excited to herald Bobulinski with a moment in the spotlight. It doesn't matter if all that Bobulinski has is uncorroborated gossip, they know they can shore up ratings by resurrecting a dead story on a political figure their audience loathes.
Do you agree with or find any part of this argument persuasive?
ymeskhout
1yr ago
Would you still find Bobulinski's claim to be credible if he had a falling out with Hunter or was chasing a moment in the media spotlight?
ymeskhout
1yr ago
Running elections seems to come with high fixed costs and low marginal costs, so it doesn't seem likely that additional votes would materially increase costs. Throwing additional votes into the tabulation machinery seems way cheaper than having real life bureaucrats carefully scrutinizing individual registrations as I outlined in my examples.
ymeskhout
1yr ago
I am not the enforcer here, if Nybbler wants to broaden or modify their original claim that's totally fine! It's just bizarre to lament how something doesn't "count" because of contours they themselves created!
ymeskhout
1yr ago
you have failed to uphold in this very day's update regarding Desantis's domestic political context, in which multiple contemporary contexts of conspiracy to commit voter fraud, potential evidence of fraudulant voting, and systemic weakness for fraud have been noted without sufficient rebuttal
But I did, in the same post above you're replying to. If DeSantis was serious about actual voter fraud, I don't have an explanation for why he'd choose to make a public spectacle of people who were misled by his administration and dragging them to jail.
Given your past ruts on this topic with similar tendencies of not acknowledging contrary evidence...
We've been over this so so many times by now, and this exchange from May 2021 remains the most illustrative. I ask questions and your response is along the lines that it's not your job to educate me. Ok, fine, I accept that it's not your job, but I have no idea what exactly you expect of me. I have no idea how I'd even try to parody your position if I wanted, because you repeatedly refuse to state what it is besides a generalized complaint! If I said "Trump's election fraud allegations were true, or at least were made in good faith" you'd accuse me of strawmanning or whatever and then darkly hint that I am somehow missing the point or that I am intentionally ignoring the real and totally valid election fraud theories that apparently exist somewhere out there.
I get that you don't like it when I talk about the 2020 election fraud theories, you've made that abundantly clear! What I don't get is why you keep wasting time on this beat. You either have specific arguments to make or you don't. If you don't have any, or you just refuse to make them out of principle, vaguely complaining is not going to accomplish anything. I'm not a mind reader, and you can't expect me to respond to arguments you choose to keep cloistered in your head.
given your frequent shills for your private substack and the financial interests in catering to your desired target audience I would submit you are not impartial
Well, you caught me. The dozens of subscribers paying $0 a month pose a grave liability to my impartiality. I hope my reputation can someday recover.
ymeskhout
3mo ago
Evidence is any fact that is consistent with the stated claim, and inconsistent with the opposite. Establishing motive and opportunity is not sufficient if it doesn't help you rule out possibilities, otherwise motive would count as evidence to support that every election was stolen by each side every time. I'm in favor of any and all safeguards that target and actually reduce the risk of actual election fraud rather than the ones that are either security theater or deployed for a pretextual purpose. This is my consistent standard for all security concerns (airport security screening, gun control measures, etc).
I think you ought to look in the mirror and ask yourself what it is about Trump voters in particular that has you so wrapped around the axle. Why did this become your hobby horse?
Because nothing comes close to the level of abject delusional theories that Trump and his followers repeated. I don't care which political party someone is part of, if they're claiming that Italian satellites changed the Dominion algorithm and created 3-5 million fraudulent votes because Hugo Chavez had planned this all along and they're receiving institutional affirmation instead of disavowed as loons, yeah, that's a serious problem.
ymeskhout
3mo ago
Adjusting equalizer settings is usually enough, and I haven't explored the AI voice tools yet but I imagine there's potential there
ymeskhout
3mo ago
What do you believe are my motte and bailey positions on this topic?
could you defend the election stolen viewpoint?
It all depends on what viewpoint we're talking about, which is why I keep asking for specifics. I already believe that some fraud happens in every election but not enough to make a difference, so I can defend that viewpoint against whoever out there happens to believe that electoral fraud does not exist. The overall problem with this topic is the inverse correlation between how defensible vs how consequential an allegation is, which is why there's a see-saw oscillation between "millions of fake ballots were cast for Biden" and "one guy in Nevada filled out his dead wife's ballot".
ymeskhout
3mo ago
This is a coherent and testable theory and I appreciate you raising it. If anyone wants to either build on this or argue that it's the strongest 2020 stolen election claim, I'm happy to talk to them.
ymeskhout
3mo ago
Motte-and-bailey fallacies rely on ambiguity in order to maintain as much flexibility as possible to jump between the two positions, and so the best guard against this tactic is to get people to be specific and unambiguous about their positions. A request for disavowal is only appropriate if there is a history or suspicion of this kind of slipperiness, and I would apply it consistently to any other topic where this issue applies.
The word 'stolen' perhaps implies some measure of dishonesty but is still too ambiguous to have a hard technical meaning. Someone claiming that the election was 'stolen' doesn't tell me enough information about what they actually belief, and paired in contrast to 'unfair' it's my imperfect attempt to try and draw a distinction between the two camps of allegations. I don't really care what vocabulary people use as long as the meaning is clear and unambiguous enough.
ymeskhout
3mo ago
I agree this is a concern though we might disagree on how widespread it is comparatively speaking. The best guard against this phenomenon is for the sane actors to disavow the retarded versions of their arguments. I'm someone who has long supported BLM's policy positions (at least the Campaign Zero ones released in 2016) and I'm not shy about acknowledging the retards who are nominally on my camp, or otherwise acknowledging reality and facts adverse to my positions.
ymeskhout
3mo ago
Ok I appreciate the attempt. I'll stick with option c until I see evidence to convince me otherwise.
ymeskhout
3mo ago
I'm sorry but I don't know what to do with this response. If the problems with my argumentation style are so clear, why are they so difficult to specify? I understand that some issues can be difficult to articulate precisely but even so that shouldn't be a barrier from suggesting alternative ways I can communicate myself. A silly example but I can understand how responding to a text message with "Thanks." comes off as curt and rude, even if I can't articulate the exact reasons why. But even then I can still suggest alternatives like "Thanks!🥰" or whatever. I would love to hear a simple suggestion along the lines of "Instead of saying X, try saying Y" or whatever the issue is.
I've asked exactly this from Dean this many many many times and he's never taken me up on the offer. Given the persistent contours of this grudge, I can only assume that his real problem isn't with my argumentation style, but the fact that I haven't adopted the conclusion he prefers. I can't just assume that people are operating in good faith if the evidence suggests otherwise.
How have I done that and which friend-enemy distinction are we talking about? From my perspective, I'm making an argument that TTV is lying about the election evidence they claim to have. I can see how that would earn me no love from TTV but antagonism is expected when you accuse someone of lying. The relevant question here would be whether my allegation is true or not, and your response doesn't actually address my argument and instead changes the subject. If you don't care about TTV, why respond to a post about TTV?
More options
Context Copy link