4 ms·

I suspected that would be the case, but as you pointed out, they have many claims. At work currently, so haven't really looked at it. Probably will tonight, ma

I suspected that would be the case, but as you pointed out, they have many claims. At work currently, so haven't really looked at it. Probably will tonight, maybe make a post refuting it.

eli 6y ago
I doubt it's worth your time. You can't refute a conspiracy theory with facts.
- Shared404 6y ago
  You can't refute those deep in, but you can help protect those who could be swayed by lots of "data" and a fancy web page. I may or may not get around to it, but I could see it being worthwhile.
  - eli 6y ago
    Respectfully disagree. I don't think you can. People are reading a website like this because they are looking for confirmation of what they already feel must be true.
    - Shared404 6y ago
      I agree mostly. I partially just want something to link to if I happen to see it linked in the wild again, it rubs me the wrong way to see it uncontested in a conversation. I figure that at least that way new people aren't getting sucked in when they click thinking "Well, I should check the other sides view."
      - dhruvkar 6y ago
        Thanks for sharing. While I agree with eli, this is an insight into what the other side is looking at. And the "other side" is definitely a spectrum of people -- ones who are open to reason and others that are absolutely not.
- Jtsummers 6y ago
  A common response I've received when refuting part or all of various conspiracy theories, young Earth creationist, or flat Earth type logic: "It doesn't matter that that's not true, it still could have been true." Like the possibility of a truth is all they need to believe in it. And then shifting goal posts.
  - eli 6y ago
    I can only imagine how much worse this all would be if the Presidential election had actually been close. We should be thankful that only an incomprehensibly vast conspiracy could possibly have "stolen" the election.
  - PenisBanana 6y ago
    > ... then shifting goal posts. Exactly, exactly the same as dishonestly conflating (a) a serious real world (it exists) situation involving many features including vast election fraud - which, yes, may or may not have swung the result with (b) " young Earth creationist, or flat Earth " Here, on HN, let's try and stay on topic.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - Jtsummers 6y ago
      Do you have real proof/evidence of this "vast election fraud"? So far none has been presented. And what "proof" is out there are either known falsehoods, crazy theories (zombie Hugo Chavez wants Biden and not Trump to win), or nonsensical (CIA/DOD/NSA radioactive isotope watermarks are applied to all legitimate ballots, any day now they'll show that x million ballots were fakes). Other than the dishonest (to themselves or others), few are claiming no fraud. There's always fraud (either intentional or not), but usually (and so far this election seems no different) in the tens to hundreds of cases. But there's no evidence of millions of faked votes.

I suspected that would be the case, but as you pointed out, they have many claims. At work currently, so haven't really looked at it. Probably will tonight, maybe make a post refuting it.

eli 6y ago

I doubt it's worth your time. You can't refute a conspiracy theory with facts.

Shared404 6y ago
You can't refute those deep in, but you can help protect those who could be swayed by lots of "data" and a fancy web page. I may or may not get around to it, but I could see it being worthwhile.
- eli 6y ago
  Respectfully disagree. I don't think you can. People are reading a website like this because they are looking for confirmation of what they already feel must be true.
  - Shared404 6y ago
    I agree mostly. I partially just want something to link to if I happen to see it linked in the wild again, it rubs me the wrong way to see it uncontested in a conversation. I figure that at least that way new people aren't getting sucked in when they click thinking "Well, I should check the other sides view."
    - dhruvkar 6y ago
      Thanks for sharing. While I agree with eli, this is an insight into what the other side is looking at. And the "other side" is definitely a spectrum of people -- ones who are open to reason and others that are absolutely not.
Jtsummers 6y ago
A common response I've received when refuting part or all of various conspiracy theories, young Earth creationist, or flat Earth type logic: "It doesn't matter that that's not true, it still could have been true." Like the possibility of a truth is all they need to believe in it. And then shifting goal posts.
- eli 6y ago
  I can only imagine how much worse this all would be if the Presidential election had actually been close. We should be thankful that only an incomprehensibly vast conspiracy could possibly have "stolen" the election.
- PenisBanana 6y ago
  > ... then shifting goal posts. Exactly, exactly the same as dishonestly conflating (a) a serious real world (it exists) situation involving many features including vast election fraud - which, yes, may or may not have swung the result with (b) " young Earth creationist, or flat Earth " Here, on HN, let's try and stay on topic.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - Jtsummers 6y ago
    Do you have real proof/evidence of this "vast election fraud"? So far none has been presented. And what "proof" is out there are either known falsehoods, crazy theories (zombie Hugo Chavez wants Biden and not Trump to win), or nonsensical (CIA/DOD/NSA radioactive isotope watermarks are applied to all legitimate ballots, any day now they'll show that x million ballots were fakes). Other than the dishonest (to themselves or others), few are claiming no fraud. There's always fraud (either intentional or not), but usually (and so far this election seems no different) in the tens to hundreds of cases. But there's no evidence of millions of faked votes.