5 ms·

You're categorizing literally tens of millions of people (in the last poll) as all having the same belief structure. In reality, you have a wide spectrum of peo

by gfodor 6y ago

You're categorizing literally tens of millions of people (in the last poll) as all having the same belief structure. In reality, you have a wide spectrum of people having varying degrees of suspicion about the current election. The goal isn't to convince all of them, but for enough of them to have reasonable confidence in the election to be willing to accept it and reject the positions of those who want to escalate things with the belief it was fraudulent. Polling implies there is a wide gulf to bridge, with moderates having extreme doubt in the result. This is unsustainable. I would imagine to actually get to that point there are really only a few simple steps needed: full forensic audits of the disputed states, as well as a day in court in SCOTUS. I believe so far those have been largely denied or blocked (the merits of doing so are irrelevant) - if those were acquiesced by the winning side and accelerated at the outset it seems highly likely to me we would be nowhere near the precipice it seems we are now.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
Look, Trump has lost nearly every single case brought forth about the election. Not just lost, but badly lost. Embarrassingly lost. Even a cursory glance at these cases show allegations with no supporting evidence or only hearsay. If any person still thinks the election was stolen after that, they're not a reasonable person.
- gfodor 6y ago
  More than a third of polled Americans see the election as illegitimate, and that includes Democrats and non-affiliated voters. [1] This doesn't mean they're right. Unfortunately, no matter how "unreasonable" you think these people are, when they exist in such numbers and feel with such confidence they've lost the ability to have fair elections, the result of suppressing, ridiculing, and marginalizing them is fairly predictable. [1] https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=3685 https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=3685
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
    But as I keep saying, there is simply no way to change their minds with rational argument. How is one supposed to: > [...] get out ahead of it and do everything in their power to legitimize the election for these people. When the people in question refuse to hear anything other than what they want to hear?
  - radley 6y ago
    > More than a third of polled Americans see the election as illegitimate, and that includes Democrats and non-affiliated voters. Did you read the poll? Literally, in the first three paragraphs: - 98% of Dems think election victory is legitimate - 97% think there was no widespread voter fraud Please stop trolling HN. Take it to Parler.
    - gfodor 6y ago
      Did you read the poll? > Do you believe there was widespread voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election, or not? > 77% R > 3% D > 35% I To feel secure that this isn't going to spill over into a conflict, we should expect to see a similarly marginal number of I's and ideally less R's (this should be a fringe belief in the Republican party, but it's not.) This question is the most extreme form of the issue, as well. (Few ought to believe widespread fraud definitely occurred, many more likely believe it’s possible strategically targeted fraud occurred, a much weaker stance but similarly dangerous.) I'm guessing you'll just assume the I's are closet Republicans. But don't blame me if you aren't willing to face reality that this skepticism is not just going to go away through coercion.
      - radley 6y ago
        No I figure independents are split. The 35% value makes me think that half of them lean liberal or progressive.
        gfodor 6y ago
        Would you agree that Independents, regardless of their internal preference, are a good barometer of centrists vs extremists? I do. And as such, we ought to want arguably 'radical' beliefs like that there was widespread fraud to be marginal in such groups if we want to feel confident it isn't something that needs addressing to avoid conflict over it.
radley 6y ago
> You're categorizing literally tens of millions of people... as all having the same belief structure. In reality, you have a wide spectrum... Actually, no. If there was no election fraud (as it seems to have been proven) then they all have the same wrong belief, regardless of degree. > The goal isn't to convince all of them... Actually, it is since "conservatives" keep pushing lies. > only a few simple steps needed: full forensic audits of the disputed states, as well as a day in court in SCOTUS Both of those have happened. So why do you, a reasonable(?) person on HN trying to convince us that it hasn't?
- gfodor 6y ago
  Your reply shows some pretty busted mental models, revealing bias or poor reasoning. Let me break it down for you. The reasonable people in this debate can speak clearly about this in a way you don't seem able to. > Actually, no. If there was no election fraud (as it seems to have been proven) Your claim here seems to be that there was no election fraud, and it seems proven. Two problems with this statement: - You cannot prove there was no election fraud, it is unfalsifiable. - Beyond that, the idea that there was no election fraud is absurd on its face. We should expect there to have been some election fraud, with some liklihood of finding evidence of it, since in an election as large as this one there is always election fraud to some degree. What I think you're trying to say, is there is insufficient evidence to prove there was sufficient election fraud to have an impact on the result. If that's the case, I agree with you. But commentators who say things like "there is no evidence of fraud" or "there is no evidence of widespread fraud" are wrong in the former case and creating a strawman in the latter. And of course, the effect of saying fallacious things like this is it just serves as confirmation for the other side that you are acting in bad faith. The specific claim made is that there was targeted fraud in specific districts in swing states to tip the result. I don't think there is sufficient evidence to show this. > then they all have the same wrong belief, regardless of degree My point is the degree matters if we care about avoiding a conflict. > The goal isn't to convince all of them... I don't know what you are saying here. My point is that if you are trying to persuade people of their errors in reasoning, you shouldn't expect to convince all of them, just a sufficient amount to reduce their confidence in their wrong beliefs to change the dynamics of the situation enough to avoid the worst possibilities. > Both of those have happened. So why do you, a reasonable(?) person on HN trying to convince us that it hasn't? This is objectively false. A full forensic audit of all the states has not occurred (some local forensic audits of sampled ballots in specific counties in some states has) and SCOTUS has not heard any cases (yet) about this issue. I don't know why you state obvious untruths, beyond just being ignorant of the facts or something.

by gfodor 6y ago

AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago

Look, Trump has lost nearly every single case brought forth about the election. Not just lost, but badly lost. Embarrassingly lost. Even a cursory glance at these cases show allegations with no supporting evidence or only hearsay. If any person still thinks the election was stolen after that, they're not a reasonable person.

gfodor 6y ago
More than a third of polled Americans see the election as illegitimate, and that includes Democrats and non-affiliated voters. [1] This doesn't mean they're right. Unfortunately, no matter how "unreasonable" you think these people are, when they exist in such numbers and feel with such confidence they've lost the ability to have fair elections, the result of suppressing, ridiculing, and marginalizing them is fairly predictable. [1] https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=3685 https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=3685
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
  But as I keep saying, there is simply no way to change their minds with rational argument. How is one supposed to: > [...] get out ahead of it and do everything in their power to legitimize the election for these people. When the people in question refuse to hear anything other than what they want to hear?
- radley 6y ago
  > More than a third of polled Americans see the election as illegitimate, and that includes Democrats and non-affiliated voters. Did you read the poll? Literally, in the first three paragraphs: - 98% of Dems think election victory is legitimate - 97% think there was no widespread voter fraud Please stop trolling HN. Take it to Parler.
  - gfodor 6y ago
    Did you read the poll? > Do you believe there was widespread voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election, or not? > 77% R > 3% D > 35% I To feel secure that this isn't going to spill over into a conflict, we should expect to see a similarly marginal number of I's and ideally less R's (this should be a fringe belief in the Republican party, but it's not.) This question is the most extreme form of the issue, as well. (Few ought to believe widespread fraud definitely occurred, many more likely believe it’s possible strategically targeted fraud occurred, a much weaker stance but similarly dangerous.) I'm guessing you'll just assume the I's are closet Republicans. But don't blame me if you aren't willing to face reality that this skepticism is not just going to go away through coercion.
    - radley 6y ago
      No I figure independents are split. The 35% value makes me think that half of them lean liberal or progressive.
      - gfodor 6y ago
        Would you agree that Independents, regardless of their internal preference, are a good barometer of centrists vs extremists? I do. And as such, we ought to want arguably 'radical' beliefs like that there was widespread fraud to be marginal in such groups if we want to feel confident it isn't something that needs addressing to avoid conflict over it.

radley 6y ago

> You're categorizing literally tens of millions of people... as all having the same belief structure. In reality, you have a wide spectrum... Actually, no. If there was no election fraud (as it seems to have been proven) then they all have the same wrong belief, regardless of degree. > The goal isn't to convince all of them... Actually, it is since "conservatives" keep pushing lies. > only a few simple steps needed: full forensic audits of the disputed states, as well as a day in court in SCOTUS Both of those have happened. So why do you, a reasonable(?) person on HN trying to convince us that it hasn't?

gfodor 6y ago
Your reply shows some pretty busted mental models, revealing bias or poor reasoning. Let me break it down for you. The reasonable people in this debate can speak clearly about this in a way you don't seem able to. > Actually, no. If there was no election fraud (as it seems to have been proven) Your claim here seems to be that there was no election fraud, and it seems proven. Two problems with this statement: - You cannot prove there was no election fraud, it is unfalsifiable. - Beyond that, the idea that there was no election fraud is absurd on its face. We should expect there to have been some election fraud, with some liklihood of finding evidence of it, since in an election as large as this one there is always election fraud to some degree. What I think you're trying to say, is there is insufficient evidence to prove there was sufficient election fraud to have an impact on the result. If that's the case, I agree with you. But commentators who say things like "there is no evidence of fraud" or "there is no evidence of widespread fraud" are wrong in the former case and creating a strawman in the latter. And of course, the effect of saying fallacious things like this is it just serves as confirmation for the other side that you are acting in bad faith. The specific claim made is that there was targeted fraud in specific districts in swing states to tip the result. I don't think there is sufficient evidence to show this. > then they all have the same wrong belief, regardless of degree My point is the degree matters if we care about avoiding a conflict. > The goal isn't to convince all of them... I don't know what you are saying here. My point is that if you are trying to persuade people of their errors in reasoning, you shouldn't expect to convince all of them, just a sufficient amount to reduce their confidence in their wrong beliefs to change the dynamics of the situation enough to avoid the worst possibilities. > Both of those have happened. So why do you, a reasonable(?) person on HN trying to convince us that it hasn't? This is objectively false. A full forensic audit of all the states has not occurred (some local forensic audits of sampled ballots in specific counties in some states has) and SCOTUS has not heard any cases (yet) about this issue. I don't know why you state obvious untruths, beyond just being ignorant of the facts or something.