This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Okay, so it sounds like you and your Republican friends don't vote by mail. Yet you are still suspicious that the people who vote by mail are not the same as those who vote in person?
I don't even disagree that there's a lot wrong with the system. I'd rather we tossed the ballots that arrive after election day (although these account for less than 1% of ballots). I'd rather we had some kind of voter ID in place. I'd rather we had the count by the morning after election day. But Pratt not getting elected is not evidence of fraud. The guy was a long shot in a city full of libs.
The signature is available for comparison from voter registration. The rejection count I gave is ballots that were not cured.
A unique identifier on the ballot compromises secrecy. I'm not aware of any state in the union which does this.
The envelope has a unique identifier.
To be clear - you are claiming that the post office is falsifying postmarks?
People were voting in person and by mail all through Election Day which produced 1. Bass 2. Pratt 3. Raman. After Election Day suddenly the ballots start surging for Raman, so that she might pass Pratt, but they don’t start surging for Pratt.
There’s no good explanation for this that isn’t just an ex-post facto. And you cannot prove that these ballots are legitimate because California deliberately implemented a system that made this impossible.
That’s not what chain of custody means.
That’s a completely different sentence.
Results changing with more ballots coming in is not evidence of fraud. Sorry, that just makes no sense.
Pratt's second most favorable ballot drop ever came on the third btw, so that part isn't even true.
What would constitute proof?
Sure. Are you under the impression that California doesn't have chain of custody for ballots? In what way? Be specific.
It's a different sentence because you are merely hinting rather than speaking plainly. Please explain what it means that the post office isn't staffed by robots if postmarks aren't being falsified.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link