8 ms·

> if you can't educate or have intellectual discourse with people who are fabricating reality or deeply believe in conspiracy theories Why do you want to go to

> if you can't educate or have intellectual discourse with people who are fabricating reality or deeply believe in conspiracy theories Why do you want to go to great lengths and "educate" people on your point of view?

watwut 6y ago
Because otherwise they will try to overturn elections and install one party state. Or because their opinions leads them to construct bombs or shoot people.
- jakearmitage 6y ago
  This is a textbook example of a straw man.
  - watwut 6y ago
    How is it strawman? Those are actual real world actions people commited, because of their opinions. Not even month ago. Ignoring yesterday, there was plan and attempt to execute Mitchigan governor last few months. There was Nashville boombing, likely due to whatever conspiracy theory that man believed. Even Elliot Rodger had opinions largely from incels chans.
    - jakearmitage 6y ago
      Let me use another scenario. 1969, Brazil. Members of a revolutionary group kidnapped the US Ambassador. After that, and a few other incidents, the government used the same argument you presented to review and approve contents of newspapers, magazines, radio shows, movies and correspondence. Do you believe it is OK to do this, in order to disrupt their planning? Do you believe it becomes not-OK if the target of domestic terror is a tyrannical government? The very same situation has happened across all of South America throughout the 20th Century. [1]: https://www.insidehook.com/article/history/kidnapped-why-an-american-ambassador-was-taken-in-rio-in-1969 https://www.insidehook.com/article/history/kidnapped-why-an-...
      - watwut 6y ago
        You asked following: "Why do you want to go to great lengths and "educate" people on your point of view?" The only strawman in this thread is the one made by you in the comment I am responding to now.
  - neaden 6y ago
    How is it a strawman, it literally just happened a few days ago.
    - ravenstine 6y ago
      They may be referring to the first statement, which in my experience doesn't seem true. I've never heard conservatives, Republicans, or Trump supporters argue for a one party state. That may be my failing, however.
      - neaden 6y ago
        What do you think it means when you lose an election, and then try to disrupt the democratic process with the goal of having the loser of the election retain power?
      - Sohcahtoa82 6y ago
        > I've never heard conservatives, Republicans, or Trump supporters argue for a one party state. Trump praised China for paving the way to make Xi Jinping's presidency permanent https://www.reuters.com/article/us-trump-china/trump-praises-chinese-president-extending-tenure-for-life-idUSKCN1GG015 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-trump-china/trump-praises... > “He’s now president for life, president for life. And he’s great,” Trump said, according to audio of excerpts of Trump’s remarks at a closed-door fundraiser in Florida aired by CNN. “And look, he was able to do that. I think it’s great. Maybe we’ll have to give that a shot someday,” Trump said to cheers and applause from supporters. Which IMO implies support for a one-party state.
- blisterpeanuts 6y ago
  > "Or because their opinions leads them to construct bombs or shoot people." Who exactly is "they"? Anyone who disagrees with you? Anyone who votes for a Republican candidate? Trump supporters? Some subset of Trump supporters who say the election was fraudulent? What about Trump supporters who say the election MAY have been fraudulent -- do they also get silenced? This is a slippery slope. You either have freedom of speech, or you don't. Muzzling people who have ideas you consider dangerous has a way of blowing back in your face; in fact it almost guarantees violence, when people feel they are not allowed to vent.
  - watwut 6y ago
    They are people who put bomb in RNC and brought one to capitol a day before yeasterday. They includes nashville bomber and whoever organized Mitchigan terrorist plot. They are also proud boys starting fights. It is not like US would have shortage of organized political violence lately. It is pretty easy to find "they".
    - blisterpeanuts 6y ago
      Your evidence is quite flimsy. The Nashville bomber was one guy committing suicide and he even warned in advance. The Michigan kidnapping plot was about 5-6 idiots who did not represent some kind of farflung organization. The Proud Boys have not started fights, to my knowledge. They have marched peacefully down the street holding U.S. flags and the like, and been violently attacked by antifa elements. They show up at left wing/antifa demonstrations but don't attack; they fight back when provoked. They've been demonized by left wing news as "white supremacists" ironically even though their leader is a black guy. So when you say "it is pretty easy to find 'they'", you need to support that statement. It's pretty easy to make stuff up, too, and I believe a lot of people are being censored on the basis of hearsay and madeup nonsense.
  - neaden 6y ago
    The people who literally stormed the capital earlier this week, some of whom brought equipment like zipties with the intention of kidnapping/hostage taking. Those specific people who we all literally just saw doing the thing on basically every TV Channel while some of them literally livestreamed themselves doing it. This is in no way ambiguous at all.
toomuchtodo 6y ago
Facts. We're talking about educating on facts, not fiction or subjection positions.
- jakearmitage 6y ago
  Which facts? Could you elaborate?
  - toomuchtodo 6y ago
    There is no proof of material voting fraud or irregularities, for example. If you believe otherwise, you are fabricating a reality. If you communicate these lies to others, you are contributing to a disinformation campaign.
    - young_unixer 6y ago
      > There is no proof of material voting fraud or irregularities And is there proof that there wasn't fraud? Does the burden of proof fall upon them or the government?
      - viro 6y ago
        Um you can't prove something didn't happen .... when in fact it didn't happen. How is this not common sense. It's not suddenly fraud when the worse president in American history loses an election.
        young_unixer 6y ago
        > Um you can't prove something didn't happen .... when in fact it didn't happen. I think you can, to a certain degree. For example: by making the mail-in system more trustworthy, or by eliminating it. My country (Chile) only uses on-site voting and no one alleges fraud because we know that it would be incredibly hard to steal an election with this system. The system is transparent, votes are counted publicly the same day of the voting. The electoral service is one of the few public institutions that I deem competent and actually trust in my country, and I think I'm not alone. To be honest, now politicians are trying to impose mail-in ballot system, but that not the electoral service's fault. That's idiot politicians trying to ruin something that works.

watwut 6y ago

Because otherwise they will try to overturn elections and install one party state. Or because their opinions leads them to construct bombs or shoot people.

jakearmitage 6y ago
This is a textbook example of a straw man.
- watwut 6y ago
  How is it strawman? Those are actual real world actions people commited, because of their opinions. Not even month ago. Ignoring yesterday, there was plan and attempt to execute Mitchigan governor last few months. There was Nashville boombing, likely due to whatever conspiracy theory that man believed. Even Elliot Rodger had opinions largely from incels chans.
  - jakearmitage 6y ago
    Let me use another scenario. 1969, Brazil. Members of a revolutionary group kidnapped the US Ambassador. After that, and a few other incidents, the government used the same argument you presented to review and approve contents of newspapers, magazines, radio shows, movies and correspondence. Do you believe it is OK to do this, in order to disrupt their planning? Do you believe it becomes not-OK if the target of domestic terror is a tyrannical government? The very same situation has happened across all of South America throughout the 20th Century. [1]: https://www.insidehook.com/article/history/kidnapped-why-an-american-ambassador-was-taken-in-rio-in-1969 https://www.insidehook.com/article/history/kidnapped-why-an-...
    - watwut 6y ago
      You asked following: "Why do you want to go to great lengths and "educate" people on your point of view?" The only strawman in this thread is the one made by you in the comment I am responding to now.
- neaden 6y ago
  How is it a strawman, it literally just happened a few days ago.
  - ravenstine 6y ago
    They may be referring to the first statement, which in my experience doesn't seem true. I've never heard conservatives, Republicans, or Trump supporters argue for a one party state. That may be my failing, however.
    - neaden 6y ago
      What do you think it means when you lose an election, and then try to disrupt the democratic process with the goal of having the loser of the election retain power?
    - Sohcahtoa82 6y ago
      > I've never heard conservatives, Republicans, or Trump supporters argue for a one party state. Trump praised China for paving the way to make Xi Jinping's presidency permanent https://www.reuters.com/article/us-trump-china/trump-praises-chinese-president-extending-tenure-for-life-idUSKCN1GG015 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-trump-china/trump-praises... > “He’s now president for life, president for life. And he’s great,” Trump said, according to audio of excerpts of Trump’s remarks at a closed-door fundraiser in Florida aired by CNN. “And look, he was able to do that. I think it’s great. Maybe we’ll have to give that a shot someday,” Trump said to cheers and applause from supporters. Which IMO implies support for a one-party state.
blisterpeanuts 6y ago
> "Or because their opinions leads them to construct bombs or shoot people." Who exactly is "they"? Anyone who disagrees with you? Anyone who votes for a Republican candidate? Trump supporters? Some subset of Trump supporters who say the election was fraudulent? What about Trump supporters who say the election MAY have been fraudulent -- do they also get silenced? This is a slippery slope. You either have freedom of speech, or you don't. Muzzling people who have ideas you consider dangerous has a way of blowing back in your face; in fact it almost guarantees violence, when people feel they are not allowed to vent.
- watwut 6y ago
  They are people who put bomb in RNC and brought one to capitol a day before yeasterday. They includes nashville bomber and whoever organized Mitchigan terrorist plot. They are also proud boys starting fights. It is not like US would have shortage of organized political violence lately. It is pretty easy to find "they".
  - blisterpeanuts 6y ago
    Your evidence is quite flimsy. The Nashville bomber was one guy committing suicide and he even warned in advance. The Michigan kidnapping plot was about 5-6 idiots who did not represent some kind of farflung organization. The Proud Boys have not started fights, to my knowledge. They have marched peacefully down the street holding U.S. flags and the like, and been violently attacked by antifa elements. They show up at left wing/antifa demonstrations but don't attack; they fight back when provoked. They've been demonized by left wing news as "white supremacists" ironically even though their leader is a black guy. So when you say "it is pretty easy to find 'they'", you need to support that statement. It's pretty easy to make stuff up, too, and I believe a lot of people are being censored on the basis of hearsay and madeup nonsense.
- neaden 6y ago
  The people who literally stormed the capital earlier this week, some of whom brought equipment like zipties with the intention of kidnapping/hostage taking. Those specific people who we all literally just saw doing the thing on basically every TV Channel while some of them literally livestreamed themselves doing it. This is in no way ambiguous at all.

toomuchtodo 6y ago

Facts. We're talking about educating on facts, not fiction or subjection positions.

jakearmitage 6y ago
Which facts? Could you elaborate?
- toomuchtodo 6y ago
  There is no proof of material voting fraud or irregularities, for example. If you believe otherwise, you are fabricating a reality. If you communicate these lies to others, you are contributing to a disinformation campaign.
  - young_unixer 6y ago
    > There is no proof of material voting fraud or irregularities And is there proof that there wasn't fraud? Does the burden of proof fall upon them or the government?
    - viro 6y ago
      Um you can't prove something didn't happen .... when in fact it didn't happen. How is this not common sense. It's not suddenly fraud when the worse president in American history loses an election.
      - young_unixer 6y ago
        > Um you can't prove something didn't happen .... when in fact it didn't happen. I think you can, to a certain degree. For example: by making the mail-in system more trustworthy, or by eliminating it. My country (Chile) only uses on-site voting and no one alleges fraud because we know that it would be incredibly hard to steal an election with this system. The system is transparent, votes are counted publicly the same day of the voting. The electoral service is one of the few public institutions that I deem competent and actually trust in my country, and I think I'm not alone. To be honest, now politicians are trying to impose mail-in ballot system, but that not the electoral service's fault. That's idiot politicians trying to ruin something that works.