3 ms·

> You should watch a documentary about flat-earthers, because you sound like one. Or a 9/11-truther. If someone says something that disagrees with your beliefs,

> You should watch a documentary about flat-earthers, because you sound like one. Or a 9/11-truther. If someone says something that disagrees with your beliefs, you don't think "Maybe what I've believed so far is wrong?", you think "They're also part of the lie!". Do you think this is a good way of persuading people to question themselves? > I saw your fellow conspiracy theorists's YouTube analysis of the "thumbdrive hand-off". I'm not sure I appreciate being associated with whoever but thank you for watching the video. > It's not even clear it's a thumbdrive in her hand. Ok, perhaps. What else was she attempting to steal from the election building? > And the logic leap is incredible. How does this "hand-off" mean election fraud? For some reason, votes are stored on removable storage media. There's no incredible leap of logic to understand that sneaking one of these drives out and modifying it or losing it without affecting the chain of custody or being seen would be a component of vote fraud. This appears to be that, therefore when someone asks for video evidence that suggests there might have been vote fraud, here is an example. But if you don't care about election integrity then its probably super boring anyway so don't fret yourself. > Did you watch another video of someone on the Internet saying "It means this, it can mean this", etc, and if so, why hasn't it been investigated? No, its pretty obvious what the logical implications are. And I don't know why it hasn't been investigated, probably because the voting system isn't even set up to defend against this type of fraud. thanks for the link, very interesting.

ytwySXpMbS 6y ago
It may not be a good way of persuading people, but it seems there’s no good way of persuading you as you simply refuse to be persuaded. We could argue about the specifics all day, but I think you should ask yourself why you want it to be true. Do you seek community? Are you angry inside and need an outlet? Here’s a video[1]. Of course from your perspective, your position makes perfect sense and isn’t extreme, and by no means am I calling you a white supremacist, but you should watch and see if you relate in any way. Please don’t dismiss it out of hand, there’s valuable lessons in it that apply to everyone, not just former white supremacists. [1] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SSH5EY-W5oM https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SSH5EY-W5oM
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  > It may not be a good way of persuading people, but it seems there’s no good way of persuading you as you simply refuse to be persuaded. Have you considered pretending for a moment that my perspective is valid instead of dismissing me like this? I'm aware that we still disagree, that's because of a variety of factors including the fact that we both, as humans, suffer from cognitive biases. But assuming that I can't be reasoned with merely because you've been unable to respond to my arguments isn't getting either of us closer to understanding each other. > We could argue about the specifics all day, but I think you should ask yourself why you want it to be true. I don't want it to be true, I don't want any of this crap to be true, the candidates we had are horrible (not speaking ill of Professor Jorgenson, mind you). I'd prefer that there was a reasonable explanation but the problem with this where there's evidence that raises suspicions but no reasonable response is that the losing side feels disenfranchised and that's bad for the country. We want everyone to feel as though their voice was heard. > Do you seek community? No I have a decent social life. > Are you angry inside and need an outlet? No, I'm fine. > Of course from your perspective, your position makes perfect sense and isn’t extreme, Thanks for the video, watching it now.
  - ytwySXpMbS 6y ago
    I’m sure you’ve reviewed the evidence and have come to your own conclusions, which is reasonable. I assume you trust what Trump says as he’s the biggest supporter of the election fraud allegations, but tell me if I’m wrong. My problem is I don’t trust at all what Trump says, from my perspective he doesn’t understand you can’t inject bleach, refuses to disapprove of the Proud Boys, etc. So when he says there’s election fraud, I don’t believe him. Maybe you’re in a position where you do believe him. His rhetoric is such that if you believe him, he tries to get you to believe only him, sowing distrust in news organisations and election officials. I think another problem is it’s very hard to disprove a negative. For example, prove that there isn’t a spy satellite orbiting earth. You can always say “well what about that other satellite, what about this area of space?”. It’s unknowable, and therefore comes down to who you trust. If you look up Trump’s factual inaccuracies so far, unless you already have, then you’ll have a clearer picture on which to base your trust.
netsharc 6y ago
> I'm not sure I appreciate being associated with whoever but thank you for watching the video. If someone seriously posts "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" I'm going to associate them with 9/11 truthers. > Ok, perhaps. What else was she attempting to steal from the election building? You (or the allegers) are just creating a narrative that's convenient for you/them! And filling in the details. We don't even see them leave the building! Here's another one: the lady on the left gave the other one her car keys, and the girl and guy were about to sneak off to the carpark to make out. Or, it was a bag of weed, and they're about to go to the back of the building and get high. Did you even confirm how the votes are stored? There are boxes with United States Postal Service in the background. So surely they're counting mail ballots. There are no computers on the desks, so, it doesn't seem the results of the counted mail ballots are being stored digitally. Do these 3 look like master hackers, or is it so easy to tamper with the digital files that it's plausible anyone (including many in republican areas) could do it, but you've only "caught" these 3 doing it?
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  > If someone seriously posts "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" I'm going to associate them with 9/11 truthers. If you ask for a video that supposedly reveals something about 9/11, and someone posts a video that fulfills your request, you are not then entitled to consider the person who responded to you as "9/11 truther." That would be ridiculous. > You (or the allegers) are just creating a narrative that's convenient for you/them! And filling in the details. We don't even see them leave the building! What do you think it would look like for someone to violate the chain of custody of a thumb drive on camera? > Here's another one: the lady on the left gave the other one her car keys, and the girl and guy were about to sneak off to the carpark to make out. Or, it was a bag of weed, and they're about to go to the back of the building and get high. None of those require or suggest the behavior seen in the video. > Did you even confirm how the votes are stored? There are boxes with United States Postal Service in the background. So surely they're counting mail ballots. There are no computers on the desks, so, it doesn't seem the results of the counted mail ballots are being stored digitally. Actually lots of voting machines read the ballot and record the result onto digital media. > Do these 3 look like master hackers, or is it so easy to tamper with the digital files that it's plausible anyone (including many in republican areas) could do it In fact its so easy that up until very recently lots of mainstream orgs (like the NYT!) were sounding the alarm. > but you've only "caught" these 3 doing it? Well first people said there was no evidence, now you're saying there must be more evidence or this doesn't count?

ytwySXpMbS 6y ago

It may not be a good way of persuading people, but it seems there’s no good way of persuading you as you simply refuse to be persuaded. We could argue about the specifics all day, but I think you should ask yourself why you want it to be true. Do you seek community? Are you angry inside and need an outlet? Here’s a video[1]. Of course from your perspective, your position makes perfect sense and isn’t extreme, and by no means am I calling you a white supremacist, but you should watch and see if you relate in any way. Please don’t dismiss it out of hand, there’s valuable lessons in it that apply to everyone, not just former white supremacists. [1] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SSH5EY-W5oM https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SSH5EY-W5oM

chordalkeyboard 6y ago
> It may not be a good way of persuading people, but it seems there’s no good way of persuading you as you simply refuse to be persuaded. Have you considered pretending for a moment that my perspective is valid instead of dismissing me like this? I'm aware that we still disagree, that's because of a variety of factors including the fact that we both, as humans, suffer from cognitive biases. But assuming that I can't be reasoned with merely because you've been unable to respond to my arguments isn't getting either of us closer to understanding each other. > We could argue about the specifics all day, but I think you should ask yourself why you want it to be true. I don't want it to be true, I don't want any of this crap to be true, the candidates we had are horrible (not speaking ill of Professor Jorgenson, mind you). I'd prefer that there was a reasonable explanation but the problem with this where there's evidence that raises suspicions but no reasonable response is that the losing side feels disenfranchised and that's bad for the country. We want everyone to feel as though their voice was heard. > Do you seek community? No I have a decent social life. > Are you angry inside and need an outlet? No, I'm fine. > Of course from your perspective, your position makes perfect sense and isn’t extreme, Thanks for the video, watching it now.
- ytwySXpMbS 6y ago
  I’m sure you’ve reviewed the evidence and have come to your own conclusions, which is reasonable. I assume you trust what Trump says as he’s the biggest supporter of the election fraud allegations, but tell me if I’m wrong. My problem is I don’t trust at all what Trump says, from my perspective he doesn’t understand you can’t inject bleach, refuses to disapprove of the Proud Boys, etc. So when he says there’s election fraud, I don’t believe him. Maybe you’re in a position where you do believe him. His rhetoric is such that if you believe him, he tries to get you to believe only him, sowing distrust in news organisations and election officials. I think another problem is it’s very hard to disprove a negative. For example, prove that there isn’t a spy satellite orbiting earth. You can always say “well what about that other satellite, what about this area of space?”. It’s unknowable, and therefore comes down to who you trust. If you look up Trump’s factual inaccuracies so far, unless you already have, then you’ll have a clearer picture on which to base your trust.

netsharc 6y ago

> I'm not sure I appreciate being associated with whoever but thank you for watching the video. If someone seriously posts "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" I'm going to associate them with 9/11 truthers. > Ok, perhaps. What else was she attempting to steal from the election building? You (or the allegers) are just creating a narrative that's convenient for you/them! And filling in the details. We don't even see them leave the building! Here's another one: the lady on the left gave the other one her car keys, and the girl and guy were about to sneak off to the carpark to make out. Or, it was a bag of weed, and they're about to go to the back of the building and get high. Did you even confirm how the votes are stored? There are boxes with United States Postal Service in the background. So surely they're counting mail ballots. There are no computers on the desks, so, it doesn't seem the results of the counted mail ballots are being stored digitally. Do these 3 look like master hackers, or is it so easy to tamper with the digital files that it's plausible anyone (including many in republican areas) could do it, but you've only "caught" these 3 doing it?

chordalkeyboard 6y ago
> If someone seriously posts "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" I'm going to associate them with 9/11 truthers. If you ask for a video that supposedly reveals something about 9/11, and someone posts a video that fulfills your request, you are not then entitled to consider the person who responded to you as "9/11 truther." That would be ridiculous. > You (or the allegers) are just creating a narrative that's convenient for you/them! And filling in the details. We don't even see them leave the building! What do you think it would look like for someone to violate the chain of custody of a thumb drive on camera? > Here's another one: the lady on the left gave the other one her car keys, and the girl and guy were about to sneak off to the carpark to make out. Or, it was a bag of weed, and they're about to go to the back of the building and get high. None of those require or suggest the behavior seen in the video. > Did you even confirm how the votes are stored? There are boxes with United States Postal Service in the background. So surely they're counting mail ballots. There are no computers on the desks, so, it doesn't seem the results of the counted mail ballots are being stored digitally. Actually lots of voting machines read the ballot and record the result onto digital media. > Do these 3 look like master hackers, or is it so easy to tamper with the digital files that it's plausible anyone (including many in republican areas) could do it In fact its so easy that up until very recently lots of mainstream orgs (like the NYT!) were sounding the alarm. > but you've only "caught" these 3 doing it? Well first people said there was no evidence, now you're saying there must be more evidence or this doesn't count?