The Politics Megathread
- Thread starter Zephyrus
- Start date
- Status
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2018
- Messages
- 1,856
Wow the government of America is so bad, I really think the Americans should rebel against the government, create a new ruling system free from taxes, elephants, donkeys and large corrupt companies to manifest their own destinys and become a young but strong country with inidviduals who don't rely on hierarchies; all trained in weapons to protect themselves and those they love with freedom of speech to advocate for whatever they wish. It should be perfectly neutral, having a broadmind and as many allies as possible without any divided party system for that will invite chaos. Those in power should be for the people rather than in self interest. The fundamental laws that rule the country should be written succinctly and simply so that it leaves no room for alternative interpretations with as little exceptions as possible. The laws should also be flexible to change, so that it is updated with a changing world; provided that most of the population agrees with the change and not to be held on to irrationally. Neither should the laws only benefit select people of a select time or it may invite corruption.
Wouldn't that be a perfect country... Oh wait.
Wouldn't that be a perfect country... Oh wait.
I'm actually baffled how gullible republicans are.
Not only they believe in god, qanon shit and the idea of socialism under Biden.
But they are also totally convinced that the democratic party is competent and functional enough to stage a nationwide election fraud.
Not only they believe in god, qanon shit and the idea of socialism under Biden.
But they are also totally convinced that the democratic party is competent and functional enough to stage a nationwide election fraud.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2018
- Messages
- 1,542
@bigtiddyoneesan MD ddosguard poopoo'd itself while I was editing so I went and did errands for a few hours. I was typing some stuff up about the paradox of tolerance and how public opinion is necessary to shutdown intolerance. In my opinion, the rules of twitter fall under public opinion since it isn't a government entity. The individuals that decide what rules to implement on twitter and who to moderate fall under the umbrella of "public opinion."
I think my point was that while there's an argument that it isn't ethical to only moderate certain opinions, it's just as unethical to not moderate those views.
I think my point was that while there's an argument that it isn't ethical to only moderate certain opinions, it's just as unethical to not moderate those views.
Group Leader
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2018
- Messages
- 710
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2019
- Messages
- 10,562
@Halo
Welcome to the issue with dogmatic beliefs.
The far left believes that the US is white supremacist patriarchy, profit is theft, and that every institution exists to oppression anyone that isn't a straight white cisgendered able-bodied man.
Obviously not everyone on the left believes that (for instance, me), just as not every Republican believes Biden will usher in Socialism or in Qanon.
I will say that the voter fraud doesn't have to be top-down, but if you have a few people with some institutional power in some districts, then it's very probable you could see mass voter fraud if enough people independently come to the same conclusions. Decentralized corruption as opposed to top-down corruption. I doubt that if there is election fraud, Biden himself would have anything to do with it. At most, you could probably catch a few bureaucrats who wouldn't let in pollwatchers, people who brought in false ballots, etc.
Having an investigation wouldn't hurt.
@BestBoy
What's interesting is that the paradox of tolerance is often misappropriated from Popper, as what Popper was saying was not meant to be a justification to suppress any view that could be intrepted as potentially harmful, but that there is a fundamental issue when people won't let conversations be had, let ideas be challenged, or that the party in question won't let rational discourse debunk any dangerous ideas. He believed only in using force if the intolerant would refuse to let any conversation be had or used force themselves to shut down something like a speech. (You can read more in his book Open Societies and its Enemies)
I'd argue that means his stance has nothing to do with whether or not something is socially "acceptable" in terms of public opinion, (Overton Window and all that) but specifically in regards to the suppression of those who wish to suppress other's speech by any means possible. I think he would definitely oppose Twitter if he were alive today in how they handle censorship, given he was largely anti-corporate as well. (For reference, he was a Marxist in college but slowly he realized how their world view fell apart and began to criticism them along with the Fascists, proposing instead that a liberal system would be the best for allowing free discourse to take its place.)
I'm a big Popperian, so I know too much about his positions, but it's important to remember Popper was big on Freedom of Speech and believed that as long as you were not inciting violence or trying to shut down other's speech, that you should be free to express your beliefs. It's tied to his epistemological stances in regards that it's based on testing claims and finding what is definitely false until you get to a point of verisimilitude where you are close enough to the truth that it is virtually indistinguishable from it.
@Tlos
I've always been curious because I have plenty of concrete things I can criticize both Trump and Biden for, but I'd be interested to see what specifically Trump actually did that the left would find objectionable that couldn't be justified or applied to Biden. Like I generally see a lot of non-specific statements, but none of these are expressed really by Trump's actions I don't think, and I think Trump actually put into play some bipartisan policies that both the left and right would consider to be "good."
Also, Socialism is probably the last direction our nation wants to go in, and if Biden was an actual socialist instead of a Corporate Democrat, I think that would be an extremely poor choice to happen in the middle of a pandemic that caused an economic recession, where we should be focused on recreating jobs and promoting more business ventures, especially for small businesses which have been hit the hardest, rather than implementing socialist policies that won't help consumers, producers, or workers in the current environment.
(Note that things like universal healthcare, social programs, etc. aren't socialist, but that socialism entails the abolition of private property and collective ownership of the means of production. I generally favor small businesses over big business, but when you consider both the tragedy of the commons and the fact that collective ownership disincentives hard work and productivity, that Marxist Socialism is fundamentally a bad idea in terms of economics.)
Welcome to the issue with dogmatic beliefs.
The far left believes that the US is white supremacist patriarchy, profit is theft, and that every institution exists to oppression anyone that isn't a straight white cisgendered able-bodied man.
Obviously not everyone on the left believes that (for instance, me), just as not every Republican believes Biden will usher in Socialism or in Qanon.
I will say that the voter fraud doesn't have to be top-down, but if you have a few people with some institutional power in some districts, then it's very probable you could see mass voter fraud if enough people independently come to the same conclusions. Decentralized corruption as opposed to top-down corruption. I doubt that if there is election fraud, Biden himself would have anything to do with it. At most, you could probably catch a few bureaucrats who wouldn't let in pollwatchers, people who brought in false ballots, etc.
Having an investigation wouldn't hurt.
@BestBoy
What's interesting is that the paradox of tolerance is often misappropriated from Popper, as what Popper was saying was not meant to be a justification to suppress any view that could be intrepted as potentially harmful, but that there is a fundamental issue when people won't let conversations be had, let ideas be challenged, or that the party in question won't let rational discourse debunk any dangerous ideas. He believed only in using force if the intolerant would refuse to let any conversation be had or used force themselves to shut down something like a speech. (You can read more in his book Open Societies and its Enemies)
I'd argue that means his stance has nothing to do with whether or not something is socially "acceptable" in terms of public opinion, (Overton Window and all that) but specifically in regards to the suppression of those who wish to suppress other's speech by any means possible. I think he would definitely oppose Twitter if he were alive today in how they handle censorship, given he was largely anti-corporate as well. (For reference, he was a Marxist in college but slowly he realized how their world view fell apart and began to criticism them along with the Fascists, proposing instead that a liberal system would be the best for allowing free discourse to take its place.)
I'm a big Popperian, so I know too much about his positions, but it's important to remember Popper was big on Freedom of Speech and believed that as long as you were not inciting violence or trying to shut down other's speech, that you should be free to express your beliefs. It's tied to his epistemological stances in regards that it's based on testing claims and finding what is definitely false until you get to a point of verisimilitude where you are close enough to the truth that it is virtually indistinguishable from it.
@Tlos
I've always been curious because I have plenty of concrete things I can criticize both Trump and Biden for, but I'd be interested to see what specifically Trump actually did that the left would find objectionable that couldn't be justified or applied to Biden. Like I generally see a lot of non-specific statements, but none of these are expressed really by Trump's actions I don't think, and I think Trump actually put into play some bipartisan policies that both the left and right would consider to be "good."
Also, Socialism is probably the last direction our nation wants to go in, and if Biden was an actual socialist instead of a Corporate Democrat, I think that would be an extremely poor choice to happen in the middle of a pandemic that caused an economic recession, where we should be focused on recreating jobs and promoting more business ventures, especially for small businesses which have been hit the hardest, rather than implementing socialist policies that won't help consumers, producers, or workers in the current environment.
(Note that things like universal healthcare, social programs, etc. aren't socialist, but that socialism entails the abolition of private property and collective ownership of the means of production. I generally favor small businesses over big business, but when you consider both the tragedy of the commons and the fact that collective ownership disincentives hard work and productivity, that Marxist Socialism is fundamentally a bad idea in terms of economics.)
The only problem with that is it's not true anymore.
"Just make your own site"
*Gets DDoSed, people upload illegal content, payment processors won't work with you, hosts will likely deplatform you, and more.*
Just make your own bank and country! 🤡
Then there's also the problem of government propaganda sites having way more funding than sites with free-ish speech.
Isn't publically known as a government entity*. How convenient. All the big social media sites, mainstream media, large corporations, and hollywood just so happen to have the same opinions on everything.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2019
- Messages
- 10,562
Also we should note the electors don't meet until the 14th of December, so the President still has yet to be decided.
Also note that these are the states that "faithless electors" can be punished for going against the vote
Of the states, only Michigan and Arizona cancels the actual vote of the states on this map.
So if there's an issue that the electors begin to suspect some shenanigans are afoot, there's a risk they may flip the election, though unlikely.
This can happen to either party depending on if the Supreme Court rules for or against Trump
Also note that these are the states that "faithless electors" can be punished for going against the vote
Of the states, only Michigan and Arizona cancels the actual vote of the states on this map.
So if there's an issue that the electors begin to suspect some shenanigans are afoot, there's a risk they may flip the election, though unlikely.
This can happen to either party depending on if the Supreme Court rules for or against Trump
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2018
- Messages
- 1,542
Oh, I wanted to point out we finally have a very strong case of election fraud. In TEXAS!
https://www.kbtx.com/2020/11/06/limestone-county-social-worker-charged-with-134-felony-counts-involving-election-fraud/
Basically, a social worker at a State Supported Living Center filed voter registration for 67 residents. Residents at a SSLC have intellectual and developmental disabilities. This took place in Limestone County, which is very solidly red. No idea how she was gonna cast those ballots, though.
Interestingly, this was filed by the AG the same day after AP broke a story about his affair being tied to criminal allegations. It seems to be a quid pro quo case at first glance.
edit:
@Tamerlane That's a fair stance to take on his views. I made sure I reinforced my knowledge of the paradox of tolerance from a libertarian site before I posted anything. This, "that the party in question won't let rational discourse debunk any dangerous ideas" is the part where I think we're at as a society. The parties in question, anyone spreading a conspiracy theory, refuses to believe rational explanations that debunk their dangerous ideas. The dangerous ideas being that the democratic election process is so fraud stricken that millions of votes are fraudulent. That fraud is being committed in front of fellow ballot workers, security guards, hundreds of observers, and thousands of viewers on the livestreams. These kinds of conspiracies empower violent groups that want civil war. The Boogaloo Boys being the ones off the top of my head.
"Faithless elector" is a phrase that keeps me up at night. There's a very real chance some more of these states could pass faithless elector laws between now and then.
@firelight Parler is doing just fine with all it's new conservative members.
https://www.kbtx.com/2020/11/06/limestone-county-social-worker-charged-with-134-felony-counts-involving-election-fraud/
Basically, a social worker at a State Supported Living Center filed voter registration for 67 residents. Residents at a SSLC have intellectual and developmental disabilities. This took place in Limestone County, which is very solidly red. No idea how she was gonna cast those ballots, though.
Interestingly, this was filed by the AG the same day after AP broke a story about his affair being tied to criminal allegations. It seems to be a quid pro quo case at first glance.
edit:
@Tamerlane That's a fair stance to take on his views. I made sure I reinforced my knowledge of the paradox of tolerance from a libertarian site before I posted anything. This, "that the party in question won't let rational discourse debunk any dangerous ideas" is the part where I think we're at as a society. The parties in question, anyone spreading a conspiracy theory, refuses to believe rational explanations that debunk their dangerous ideas. The dangerous ideas being that the democratic election process is so fraud stricken that millions of votes are fraudulent. That fraud is being committed in front of fellow ballot workers, security guards, hundreds of observers, and thousands of viewers on the livestreams. These kinds of conspiracies empower violent groups that want civil war. The Boogaloo Boys being the ones off the top of my head.
"Faithless elector" is a phrase that keeps me up at night. There's a very real chance some more of these states could pass faithless elector laws between now and then.
@firelight Parler is doing just fine with all it's new conservative members.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2019
- Messages
- 10,562
Now that's a fuck up if I ever saw one. If it was stupidity in stead of malice, then hot damn. If it was malice instead of stupidity, I will proceed to point and laugh. (Interesting is that it never says who she voted for. Like she's a social worker, so you'd assume Biden, but she's also a landwhale and in Texas, so you'd assume Trump.)
@Bestboy
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2018
- Messages
- 82
@Halo
Looks like someone's being a bit euphoric. In my opinion it requires either ignorance or naïvety to think that any party wouldn't have the know-how to cheat given sufficient motivation. For one, if there was election fraud it wasn't nation wide, but limited to only battlegrounds. Election fraud also doesn't require everyone to be in on the plan, which is why I find the switcheroo in Michigan to be the most damning evidence of cheating thus far. It's ridiculously easy for a programmer to switch votes on the local frontend. Hell, even doing the switching on the backend once the votes have been sent isn't hard for anyone with a rudimentary understanding of the system. The black hat in me would in fact make it really hard to detect fraud by only perma-storing a number of votes determined algorithmically based on the current performance of my preferred candidate and only doing it when needed.
In fact if the code isn't reviewed publically I wouldn't trust it all and especially not if there's sudden 11th hour firmware updates being made. Fuck security through secrecy. If it was up to me I'd have experts from both parties review the code on all election hardware and only when reviewed by both and accepted would it get compiled. If it's an ASIC we're dealing with, then even the circuit itself should be inspected so that neither party can implement cheats into the circuitry itself.
t. software engineer
Looks like someone's being a bit euphoric. In my opinion it requires either ignorance or naïvety to think that any party wouldn't have the know-how to cheat given sufficient motivation. For one, if there was election fraud it wasn't nation wide, but limited to only battlegrounds. Election fraud also doesn't require everyone to be in on the plan, which is why I find the switcheroo in Michigan to be the most damning evidence of cheating thus far. It's ridiculously easy for a programmer to switch votes on the local frontend. Hell, even doing the switching on the backend once the votes have been sent isn't hard for anyone with a rudimentary understanding of the system. The black hat in me would in fact make it really hard to detect fraud by only perma-storing a number of votes determined algorithmically based on the current performance of my preferred candidate and only doing it when needed.
In fact if the code isn't reviewed publically I wouldn't trust it all and especially not if there's sudden 11th hour firmware updates being made. Fuck security through secrecy. If it was up to me I'd have experts from both parties review the code on all election hardware and only when reviewed by both and accepted would it get compiled. If it's an ASIC we're dealing with, then even the circuit itself should be inspected so that neither party can implement cheats into the circuitry itself.
t. software engineer
Group Leader
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2018
- Messages
- 2,048
I'm really disappointed that Trump, the Republicans and their voters aren't doing anything. They just sit and watch as the Democrats, giant news media and giant social media platforms flex their infinite power in their face. Already too domesticated for protests, riots or civil wars eh?
Well, Trump could try to run again in 4 years, but he'll be 78 yo by then and who the hell would vote for a sleepy old man with a dementi- oh...
Well, Trump could try to run again in 4 years, but he'll be 78 yo by then and who the hell would vote for a sleepy old man with a dementi- oh...
@Tamerlane
But even then that won't save us from meme conspiracy theories like the one above.
Of course. As well as compulsory education on how votes are counted in every state.
But even then that won't save us from meme conspiracy theories like the one above.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2018
- Messages
- 1,542
@Tamerlane I made an edit about Popper, btw. Also, occupation doesn't say a lot about how people vote in Texas. Lots of typically left leaning jobs are done by right leaning individuals, especially in rural areas like Mexia. I'm from Texas, btw.
@porkwrangler It was reported today that the issue in Michigan was actually a human error in reporting, and not a tabulation error. In other words, the votes were accurate, but whoever reported it to others did it wrong. No voters were disenfranchised. There might be something in Gwinnett, though? Not sure.
@Kanami-chan I think Trump might be dead from heart disease by then. He needs to start walking his golf courses instead of riding the carts if he wants to make it to 78.
@Halo Mandatory participation as a ballot counter. Make it like jury duty.
@porkwrangler It was reported today that the issue in Michigan was actually a human error in reporting, and not a tabulation error. In other words, the votes were accurate, but whoever reported it to others did it wrong. No voters were disenfranchised. There might be something in Gwinnett, though? Not sure.
@Kanami-chan I think Trump might be dead from heart disease by then. He needs to start walking his golf courses instead of riding the carts if he wants to make it to 78.
@Halo Mandatory participation as a ballot counter. Make it like jury duty.
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2018
- Messages
- 82
@BestBoy
I was referring to the Antrim 6000 vote change specifically. Not the massive 130k+ change. Tried to even use Google to see if it had been debunked™. I've had a few beers tonight so maybe I missed it... If there's a source then I'd appreciate it.
Edit: Tried to find some more info and found nothing referring to a human error, which would imply that it was either hardware or software. Still open to sources though, since I haven't been following all the news super closely.
I was referring to the Antrim 6000 vote change specifically. Not the massive 130k+ change. Tried to even use Google to see if it had been debunked™. I've had a few beers tonight so maybe I missed it... If there's a source then I'd appreciate it.
Edit: Tried to find some more info and found nothing referring to a human error, which would imply that it was either hardware or software. Still open to sources though, since I haven't been following all the news super closely.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2018
- Messages
- 1,542
@porkwrangler Here you go straight from the source:
https://www.michigan.gov/documents/sos/Antrim_Fact_Check_707197_7.pdf
Here's the relevant tweet:
https://twitter.com/MichSoS/status/1325163831249661952
You can find the same notation in right wing Daily Caller:
https://dailycaller.com/2020/11/06/antrim-county-michigan-voting-counting-error/
Right under the embedded video.
https://www.michigan.gov/documents/sos/Antrim_Fact_Check_707197_7.pdf
Here's the relevant tweet:
https://twitter.com/MichSoS/status/1325163831249661952
You can find the same notation in right wing Daily Caller:
https://dailycaller.com/2020/11/06/antrim-county-michigan-voting-counting-error/
Right under the embedded video.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2019
- Messages
- 10,562
@BestBoy I'd argue that most people don't think that every part of the election was rigged, rather, I think it's more accurate to say that the argument is that certain key states had some suspicious activities that all happened around the same time, indicating potential voter fraud.
From Popper's perspective, I'd think that he wouldn't assume that the majority of people who would have concerns about this are likely to commit violence as much as want a proper investigation, though there are certainly some radicals who would call for violence, I'd say that it would be a slippery slope to assume everyone who raises qualms or brings attention to potential corruption is promoting violence, because that line of logic could be applied to any ideology or belief. For instance, it would be just as fallacious to say that Biden supporters would use violence to quash anyone who questions the legitimacy of the election because they don't want people to find out the truth. (Not only does that sneak in the premise, but it assumes a slippery slope that would lead to violence to justify the Popperian Paradox of Tolerance in a case he probably wouldn't apply it towards because the base issue can be resolved through non-violent means through a non-partisan investigation and trial)
It's also noted that Popper does not believe spreading a potentially bad idea would warrant the use of force if it did not call for violence explicitly that would result in imminent violent being had, nor did he believe that people ought to be censored on those grounds if they did not incite violence. So I seriously doubt anyone talking about the potential of voter fraud playing a factor in the election would be something he would support using force or censorship to suppress.
I'd also argue that just labeling the idea as a "conspiracy theory" is more or less manipulating the connotative use of that word to imply that everyone who has concerns are unreasonable, Alex-Jones level paranoid and delusional nutjobs with no basis or facts to backup their position, but I don't think that's a fair characterization, as sometimes something that may seem outlandish or conspiratorial may turn out to be true. (See: Watergate, The Corrupt Bargain, Pentagon Papers, Tuskegee Experiments, etc.) Don't reject ideas out of an appeal to absurdity, because that's fallacious as well, but try to see where the evidence takes us, hence the need for an investigation.
From Popper's perspective, I'd think that he wouldn't assume that the majority of people who would have concerns about this are likely to commit violence as much as want a proper investigation, though there are certainly some radicals who would call for violence, I'd say that it would be a slippery slope to assume everyone who raises qualms or brings attention to potential corruption is promoting violence, because that line of logic could be applied to any ideology or belief. For instance, it would be just as fallacious to say that Biden supporters would use violence to quash anyone who questions the legitimacy of the election because they don't want people to find out the truth. (Not only does that sneak in the premise, but it assumes a slippery slope that would lead to violence to justify the Popperian Paradox of Tolerance in a case he probably wouldn't apply it towards because the base issue can be resolved through non-violent means through a non-partisan investigation and trial)
It's also noted that Popper does not believe spreading a potentially bad idea would warrant the use of force if it did not call for violence explicitly that would result in imminent violent being had, nor did he believe that people ought to be censored on those grounds if they did not incite violence. So I seriously doubt anyone talking about the potential of voter fraud playing a factor in the election would be something he would support using force or censorship to suppress.
I'd also argue that just labeling the idea as a "conspiracy theory" is more or less manipulating the connotative use of that word to imply that everyone who has concerns are unreasonable, Alex-Jones level paranoid and delusional nutjobs with no basis or facts to backup their position, but I don't think that's a fair characterization, as sometimes something that may seem outlandish or conspiratorial may turn out to be true. (See: Watergate, The Corrupt Bargain, Pentagon Papers, Tuskegee Experiments, etc.) Don't reject ideas out of an appeal to absurdity, because that's fallacious as well, but try to see where the evidence takes us, hence the need for an investigation.
- Status
Similar threads
