- Joined
- Jun 13, 2018
- Messages
- 82
The Politics Megathread
- Thread starter Zephyrus
- Start date
- Status
Group Leader
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2018
- Messages
- 2,030
Democrats and American Liberals be like: "You have no hard evidence that we ate the chocolate!"
Transparent
Transparent
Active member
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2019
- Messages
- 203
@Tamerlane tbh market socialism like what professor Richard Wolff describes could be sustainable in the future but with the pandemic and all something like socdem is probably much more reasonable and less of a larp
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2018
- Messages
- 1,536
@Tamerlane I want to clarify I don't have a problem investigating electoral fraud, but there must be evidence that it occurred. Not hearsay, not a 80+ year old blind woman who forgot she voted, not an observer trying to circumvent rules, and not all these videos from the ballot counting livestreams of ballot workers doing their normal work. Take for instance the Dominion voting machine in Antrim County. Something odd seemed to happen with the votes, it was investigated by the SoS, discovered to be an isolated user error in reporting, and a report was released detailing that. Never went to court. And now it shouldn't be the gathering point for fraud allegations, but I guarantee it will be.
When I talk about people spreading conspiracy theories, I'm talking about the folks like Alex Jones. Folks who are trying to connect Dominion with George Soros and Hillary Clinton to uncover the vast conspiracy that they want to control all the elections till the end of the U.S. I'm not talking about the obnoxious people on twitter saying "count all the legal votes." Those are just misinformed voters parroting their favorite talk show host.
Just wanted to let everyone know I did catch some hushpuppies (corn fritters) and a paper plate on fire in the microwave tonight. 2 minutes was 2 long.
When I talk about people spreading conspiracy theories, I'm talking about the folks like Alex Jones. Folks who are trying to connect Dominion with George Soros and Hillary Clinton to uncover the vast conspiracy that they want to control all the elections till the end of the U.S. I'm not talking about the obnoxious people on twitter saying "count all the legal votes." Those are just misinformed voters parroting their favorite talk show host.
Just wanted to let everyone know I did catch some hushpuppies (corn fritters) and a paper plate on fire in the microwave tonight. 2 minutes was 2 long.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2020
- Messages
- 596
Interesting that people who falsely call BLM "rioters" & Antifa "terrorists" are now saying it's time to rise up against the Biden administration.
I wonder how people manage to convince themselves that the media can actually be more liberal than the conservative corporations that own them?
Meanwhile in Puerto Rico: https://www.democracynow.org/2020/11/6/puerto_rico_ana_irma_rivera_lassen
I wonder how people manage to convince themselves that the media can actually be more liberal than the conservative corporations that own them?
Meanwhile in Puerto Rico: https://www.democracynow.org/2020/11/6/puerto_rico_ana_irma_rivera_lassen
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2019
- Messages
- 10,562
@Tlos Market Socialism still has its issues even if we take a government out of it, such as we still have an issue of incentivizations in that it disincentivizes success or hard work. Take the Pareto principle, which states 80% of the results will come from 20% of workers. Think about how often you'll hear complaints from college students or high schoolers about how shitty their coworkers are who never seem to do anything. Those will typically be your 80% that does the 20% of the results. Socialism rewards them equally to those who do not put in any work at all, and so it essentially says to the workers that the fruits of their labor that they sell will not be returned by hardwork to keep the business afloat, but rather, that they might as well put in the minimal effort to reap the maximum reward. (All economics and human biology works on this paradigm, in that humans want to earn the most whilst putting in the least amount of energy, and where that equilibrium is going to be is different depending on things like personality types.) This is one of many of the psychological pitfalls socialism falls into because it fails to account for how humans are driven by incentivizes, which is a strength of capitalism in that it uses what may seem to be the more harmful aspects of human psychology (the drive to earn more resources such as through greed) to benefit society as a whole through things like entrepreneurship, human capital, resources, labor, etc.
Also note that the issue with running a company is you need different people with different qualifications with the knowledge and human capital to make informed decisions, and are placed in a hierarchy accordingly. If you collectively own the means of production, these people will not be able to properly inform or have a say because of their work, which will cause the workers to make worse decisions. You want businesses to be really productive, which is why you have such a rigid hierarchy and centralization of power, but you don't want the same from the government due to its tendency to grow into an unshackled leviathan, so you pin branches against one another and decentralize. Businesses should be in competition with one another already if it's not a monopoly, (in which case, the government should intervene as it only harms the market, consumer and worker) so you usually don't have to worry too much if you know how to properly regulate the market. Shackled Leviathan.
@Bestboy
Understandable, but I don't think anecdotal evidence is the primary crux of most arguments.
One of the more compelling counters I've seen is that Biden's Election votes is that it violates Benford's law in the contested counties, which is often used as a rule because it's a good metric for finding statistical anomalies, especially because in Voter Fraud, the numbers tend to clump together as opposed to how they would naturally because it violates one of the general rules of Benford's law.
How it works is that it says that it categorizes the frequency of the first numerical value (for instance 1,000,000) and then lists them by frequency, which tends to be a downward trend.
Granted, it's similar to other issues in statistics where it is possible to happen by chance alone or other unusual situations, it's just really, really unlikely. (Similar to confidence intervals) Also note that some deviation is expected as is with all statistics, but more deviation is more concerning.
(To be fully honest, the graphs here are also from a partisan source, but from what I can gather, the numbers are accurate, but still take it with a grain of salt if needed.)
First digit frequencies
Second Digit Frequencies in Allegheny Pennsylvania
[imghttps://theredelephants.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Trump-.jpg][/img]
Second Digit Frequencies in Allegheny Pennsylvania with Absentee ballots
[imghttps://theredelephants.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/1.jpg][/img]
(Note Trump's is slightly lower than expected which is explained by distrust of the postal system, but Biden's doesn't follow the graph at all, which is concerning)
So far the only article I've seen that tried to counter this claim was by EIP, which was established earlier this year by Standford and isn't the most impartial for sources. (For reference, the only two authors that I couldn't find evidence of potential bias is Emma Spiro and Joe Bak-Coleman, which fair enough, given their credentials appear in order. This does not mean their wrong, just as the previous graphs may not be wrong, but again, grain of salt)
The issue is the article doesn't address or really counter the data or actually even show the actual graphs in question, but more tries to apply guilt by association without rebutting or explaining the phenomena. (For reference, I try to debunk all the pieces of evidence I come across and if the evidence I find to debunk it is shoddy, then I try to see what the general consensus around it is.)
Hopefully the data used here is wrong because if it actually turns out to be correct, there's some major questions we need to be asking ourselves.
Keep in mind this isn't the only evidence I've been looking into, but I've been trying to debunk this one or see how likely it is to be true, so there's some concern here at least just from this evidence alone.
For reference, here's the data from the Iranian election used to prove fraud there. It's not nearly as bad, but it is enough concerns.
Also note that the issue with running a company is you need different people with different qualifications with the knowledge and human capital to make informed decisions, and are placed in a hierarchy accordingly. If you collectively own the means of production, these people will not be able to properly inform or have a say because of their work, which will cause the workers to make worse decisions. You want businesses to be really productive, which is why you have such a rigid hierarchy and centralization of power, but you don't want the same from the government due to its tendency to grow into an unshackled leviathan, so you pin branches against one another and decentralize. Businesses should be in competition with one another already if it's not a monopoly, (in which case, the government should intervene as it only harms the market, consumer and worker) so you usually don't have to worry too much if you know how to properly regulate the market. Shackled Leviathan.
@Bestboy
Understandable, but I don't think anecdotal evidence is the primary crux of most arguments.
One of the more compelling counters I've seen is that Biden's Election votes is that it violates Benford's law in the contested counties, which is often used as a rule because it's a good metric for finding statistical anomalies, especially because in Voter Fraud, the numbers tend to clump together as opposed to how they would naturally because it violates one of the general rules of Benford's law.
How it works is that it says that it categorizes the frequency of the first numerical value (for instance 1,000,000) and then lists them by frequency, which tends to be a downward trend.
Granted, it's similar to other issues in statistics where it is possible to happen by chance alone or other unusual situations, it's just really, really unlikely. (Similar to confidence intervals) Also note that some deviation is expected as is with all statistics, but more deviation is more concerning.
(To be fully honest, the graphs here are also from a partisan source, but from what I can gather, the numbers are accurate, but still take it with a grain of salt if needed.)
First digit frequencies
Second Digit Frequencies in Allegheny Pennsylvania
[imghttps://theredelephants.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Trump-.jpg][/img]
Second Digit Frequencies in Allegheny Pennsylvania with Absentee ballots
[imghttps://theredelephants.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/1.jpg][/img]
(Note Trump's is slightly lower than expected which is explained by distrust of the postal system, but Biden's doesn't follow the graph at all, which is concerning)
So far the only article I've seen that tried to counter this claim was by EIP, which was established earlier this year by Standford and isn't the most impartial for sources. (For reference, the only two authors that I couldn't find evidence of potential bias is Emma Spiro and Joe Bak-Coleman, which fair enough, given their credentials appear in order. This does not mean their wrong, just as the previous graphs may not be wrong, but again, grain of salt)
The issue is the article doesn't address or really counter the data or actually even show the actual graphs in question, but more tries to apply guilt by association without rebutting or explaining the phenomena. (For reference, I try to debunk all the pieces of evidence I come across and if the evidence I find to debunk it is shoddy, then I try to see what the general consensus around it is.)
Hopefully the data used here is wrong because if it actually turns out to be correct, there's some major questions we need to be asking ourselves.
Keep in mind this isn't the only evidence I've been looking into, but I've been trying to debunk this one or see how likely it is to be true, so there's some concern here at least just from this evidence alone.
For reference, here's the data from the Iranian election used to prove fraud there. It's not nearly as bad, but it is enough concerns.
Group Leader
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2019
- Messages
- 2,331
I call people who riot rioters. Simple.
I'm more disappointed in how much of a letdown the Trump administration was. He had such a good victory against Hillary and her SJW army. It was a great chance for the GOP to consolidate their power and win over the people's admiration. They had so much time to come up with something decent to replace Obamacare, since they bitch about it so much, only to come up with nothing. Same with the wall that Mexico will pay for. Trade war with China and bailing out of the middle east weren't done very well, either, though those are actually not entirely his fault. Worst thing is how much he dicked around playing golf and charged the secret service to stay at his place.
Trump had a good opportunity to leave behind a wonderful presidency, but then he blew it like he did with his casinos.
And I have zero hope for Biden to do anything properly.
I'm more disappointed in how much of a letdown the Trump administration was. He had such a good victory against Hillary and her SJW army. It was a great chance for the GOP to consolidate their power and win over the people's admiration. They had so much time to come up with something decent to replace Obamacare, since they bitch about it so much, only to come up with nothing. Same with the wall that Mexico will pay for. Trade war with China and bailing out of the middle east weren't done very well, either, though those are actually not entirely his fault. Worst thing is how much he dicked around playing golf and charged the secret service to stay at his place.
Trump had a good opportunity to leave behind a wonderful presidency, but then he blew it like he did with his casinos.
And I have zero hope for Biden to do anything properly.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2019
- Messages
- 10,562
@Mr_Detective
Honestly, as someone who was in favor of Obamacare, I'm glad he only got rid of the controversial parts because it means it likely won't be undone, though I'd blame the GOP for bitching about it so much and not having a better healthcare plan. (I'm for a system where the government is acting just more or less as a competitor with lower costs, making the other private options have to lower their inflated prices in order to compete, whilst still ensuring quality. Basically, keep a public plan as a safety net, but make sure that we don't become like the NHS in Britain and have better options for those who can afford it.)
I think I still don't like the GOP because I think the Neoconservative platform is ass-backwards and I was hoping that Trump would at least bring about some reforms. (Pro Gay Rights, more based in secular and universal values, stop being so obsessed about settled issues like abortion, etc. Essentially, stop caring about the social issues that wider culture has already dropped and keep the concern on core values like freedom of speech, rights under the law, etc. that are becoming more predominant in today's society.)
Honestly, as someone who was in favor of Obamacare, I'm glad he only got rid of the controversial parts because it means it likely won't be undone, though I'd blame the GOP for bitching about it so much and not having a better healthcare plan. (I'm for a system where the government is acting just more or less as a competitor with lower costs, making the other private options have to lower their inflated prices in order to compete, whilst still ensuring quality. Basically, keep a public plan as a safety net, but make sure that we don't become like the NHS in Britain and have better options for those who can afford it.)
I think I still don't like the GOP because I think the Neoconservative platform is ass-backwards and I was hoping that Trump would at least bring about some reforms. (Pro Gay Rights, more based in secular and universal values, stop being so obsessed about settled issues like abortion, etc. Essentially, stop caring about the social issues that wider culture has already dropped and keep the concern on core values like freedom of speech, rights under the law, etc. that are becoming more predominant in today's society.)
Active member
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2019
- Messages
- 203
@Tamerlane next you’re going to tell me the 12 rules for life
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2018
- Messages
- 1,536
@Tamerlane I've had a tweet talking about Benford's up for a few days now. It's something I'm keeping my eye on. I've heard that in the cases of Allegheny and Milwaukee the districts themselves don't follow benford's law because they are roughly the same size and have roughly an equal number of voters. There's also the issue of a preferred candidate in Allegheny. I think there's an explanation for 2nd digit at the bottom as well.
I've seen talk, but haven't read, of a cambridge research paper that disputes whether benford's is effective for elections at all.
https://github.com/cjph8914/2020_benfords/issues/9
The above link is a discussion (actually an issue) brought up in the 2020 benford's github where most of this data is coming from (it's where your Milwaukee graph came from). There are 20 issues so far, but I think some aren't actually issues but "great job!" kinds of posts.
Benford's, of course, isn't evidence of fraud. It just shows that the numbers are anomalous. We've already talked about how this election isn't normal. I'll have to look if Bendord's is affected by high voter turnout, or the way the ballots are reported by ballot counters. Like in large batches rather than small ones. I'm not really a math guy so I might just wait and see if someone else figures it out. I leave for a 10 day long work trip soon so I think someone will have done it by then if not within the next couple of days.
I've seen talk, but haven't read, of a cambridge research paper that disputes whether benford's is effective for elections at all.
https://github.com/cjph8914/2020_benfords/issues/9
The above link is a discussion (actually an issue) brought up in the 2020 benford's github where most of this data is coming from (it's where your Milwaukee graph came from). There are 20 issues so far, but I think some aren't actually issues but "great job!" kinds of posts.
Benford's, of course, isn't evidence of fraud. It just shows that the numbers are anomalous. We've already talked about how this election isn't normal. I'll have to look if Bendord's is affected by high voter turnout, or the way the ballots are reported by ballot counters. Like in large batches rather than small ones. I'm not really a math guy so I might just wait and see if someone else figures it out. I leave for a 10 day long work trip soon so I think someone will have done it by then if not within the next couple of days.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2020
- Messages
- 596
Voter suppression in North Carolina: https://www.democracynow.org/2020/11/2/alamance_county_voting_march_police
Group Leader
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2018
- Messages
- 2,030
Cyberpunk
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2019
- Messages
- 10,562
@BestBoy
I should note that I did specify it's not concrete evidence of fraud, but it's a good indicator that something may be afoot or need to be investigated. Especially when you can definitely see one is much more of an outlier than the others within the same dataset. Statistics aren't usually concrete proof of much beyond that there's something going on mathematically in relation to odds and probability, but it's a good litmus test for if something seems off.
@Halo
My issue is twitter definitely shouldn't have the right to do that. Corporations being allowed to police what politicians and the president says and de facto censor them is some nightmare dystopia shit.
I'm pretty sure he'll be banned as soon as he leaves office
@Tlos
Honestly that's a pet peeve of mine is that people associate an argument with another person they don't like who made the same arguement and then dismiss it on those grounds without addressing the issues presented. Really I just based my qualms off of what I know about economics and human psychology, more than any one specific philosopher like Peterson.
Not to derride you specific, it's just a trend that I've noticed that happens in debates with leftists
I should note that I did specify it's not concrete evidence of fraud, but it's a good indicator that something may be afoot or need to be investigated. Especially when you can definitely see one is much more of an outlier than the others within the same dataset. Statistics aren't usually concrete proof of much beyond that there's something going on mathematically in relation to odds and probability, but it's a good litmus test for if something seems off.
@Halo
My issue is twitter definitely shouldn't have the right to do that. Corporations being allowed to police what politicians and the president says and de facto censor them is some nightmare dystopia shit.
I'm pretty sure he'll be banned as soon as he leaves office
@Tlos
Honestly that's a pet peeve of mine is that people associate an argument with another person they don't like who made the same arguement and then dismiss it on those grounds without addressing the issues presented. Really I just based my qualms off of what I know about economics and human psychology, more than any one specific philosopher like Peterson.
Not to derride you specific, it's just a trend that I've noticed that happens in debates with leftists
@Tamerlane It's a private platform, they can do whatever they want. Republicans love not having any regulations in private sector, I'm sure they'll understand. 🙂
They (social media) are still rats though. It's obvious they're just trying to jump ship and escape repercussions. Still hilarious though.
They (social media) are still rats though. It's obvious they're just trying to jump ship and escape repercussions. Still hilarious though.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2019
- Messages
- 10,562
@Halo
I know you're memeing on the lassiez faire crowd, but "it's a private platform" argument has always rubbed me the wrong way. If you telephone lines stopped servicing you for political reasons, it would be an injustice, just as it would be if a social media service would be. It's tied to the categorical imperative in that if every platform doesn't host you, or even the ones with the largest market share, then you no longer have free speech in practice because there is no effective way to communicate the message. Additionally, a social media site isn't a private platform in the same way a theater or a university is, as it has such a low barrier to entry that they're not acting as a "publisher," hence their safe harbor protections that make them unaccountable for what is posted.
A forum should not discriminate in who it hosts, especially the larger it gets, unless that action is outright illegal. A corporate should not have more power than the government, censor the government or regulate the government, as they are not accountable to the people the same way a government is, and therefore they do not have the authority to do most of the things they are doing because they do not have the consent of the governed to worry about. It is therefore the government's job to ensure that businesses do not become too oppressive just as it is the job of the citizenry to make sure the government does not become too oppressive and ensure its own rights. That's the social contract. The Supreme Court even agrees that the corporations, if of sufficient power or influence, must preserve the right to free speech such as in cases of Marsh v Alabama.
The final issue I have with this argument is that it's not principled. Left-wingers should be even MORE concerned with tyrannical overreach of big businesses into censorship than the right is, yet they instead appeal to hypocrisy on the right because it benefits them, not realizing that as soon as all the right wingers are gone, the left wingers will be next, In truth, both sides should be against the private sector having more power than the government if they wish to safe guard the democratic institutions and preserve our rights that we are entitled to as citizens. Left wingers serve to keep the private industry in check, but if they're passively facilitating their rise to power, then we have an issue.
Though this is probably the liberal in me screaming at my own side, mostly.
I know you're memeing on the lassiez faire crowd, but "it's a private platform" argument has always rubbed me the wrong way. If you telephone lines stopped servicing you for political reasons, it would be an injustice, just as it would be if a social media service would be. It's tied to the categorical imperative in that if every platform doesn't host you, or even the ones with the largest market share, then you no longer have free speech in practice because there is no effective way to communicate the message. Additionally, a social media site isn't a private platform in the same way a theater or a university is, as it has such a low barrier to entry that they're not acting as a "publisher," hence their safe harbor protections that make them unaccountable for what is posted.
A forum should not discriminate in who it hosts, especially the larger it gets, unless that action is outright illegal. A corporate should not have more power than the government, censor the government or regulate the government, as they are not accountable to the people the same way a government is, and therefore they do not have the authority to do most of the things they are doing because they do not have the consent of the governed to worry about. It is therefore the government's job to ensure that businesses do not become too oppressive just as it is the job of the citizenry to make sure the government does not become too oppressive and ensure its own rights. That's the social contract. The Supreme Court even agrees that the corporations, if of sufficient power or influence, must preserve the right to free speech such as in cases of Marsh v Alabama.
The final issue I have with this argument is that it's not principled. Left-wingers should be even MORE concerned with tyrannical overreach of big businesses into censorship than the right is, yet they instead appeal to hypocrisy on the right because it benefits them, not realizing that as soon as all the right wingers are gone, the left wingers will be next, In truth, both sides should be against the private sector having more power than the government if they wish to safe guard the democratic institutions and preserve our rights that we are entitled to as citizens. Left wingers serve to keep the private industry in check, but if they're passively facilitating their rise to power, then we have an issue.
Though this is probably the liberal in me screaming at my own side, mostly.
@Tamerlane Telephone line is a utility you're paying for, social media is a "free" service where you're the product being sold. This dystopian reality is what Donald, the GOP and fucking Dems fought for. Although I'm not particularly thrilled by how much power this shitty platform has over our society, as a leftist who has no voice in this country I'm just going to enjoy the show.
Another good one:
> "Learn how voting by mail is safe and secure"
I wish I could see him malding.
Another good one:
> "Learn how voting by mail is safe and secure"
I wish I could see him malding.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2018
- Messages
- 1,536
@Tamerlane I made the note for others. I assumed you knew that.
Taking on the powers of moderation for platforms (section 230) would be very difficult because of it's implications and effects on free speech on the internet.
Taking on the powers of moderation for platforms (section 230) would be very difficult because of it's implications and effects on free speech on the internet.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2020
- Messages
- 596
Biden winning Georgia isn't that mysterious: https://www.democracynow.org/2020/11/6/anoa_changa_georgia_2020_election
Trump spent a lot of time bullying a little girl named Greta Thunberg--revenge is sweet: https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle...ld-trump-on-twitter/ar-BB1aLj3b?ocid=msedgntp
His chickens are coming home to roost: https://news.yahoo.com/explainer-ci...-184755767.html?.tsrc=daily_mail&uh_test=1_04
Trump spent a lot of time bullying a little girl named Greta Thunberg--revenge is sweet: https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle...ld-trump-on-twitter/ar-BB1aLj3b?ocid=msedgntp
His chickens are coming home to roost: https://news.yahoo.com/explainer-ci...-184755767.html?.tsrc=daily_mail&uh_test=1_04
- Status
Similar threads
