4 ms·

The fiery calls to "fight" are not the problem. It is the "this election was stolen from us", rigged election, etc. without any evidence. And what's more, sayin

by jjeaff 6y ago

The fiery calls to "fight" are not the problem. It is the "this election was stolen from us", rigged election, etc. without any evidence. And what's more, saying those things after courts have shut them down and rejected them. If you make such grave accusations without proof, you are guilty of inciting what results. If you see smoke and yell fire in a crowded room and people are trampled trying to get out, fine. If you yell fire in a crowded room with no evidence, and people get trampled, you are culpable. Even if you said "remain calm and peaceful" after you yelled fire.

oceanplexian 6y ago
A few of those arguments don't require evidence, since they were matters of law vs. matters of fact. One of the arguments made was that laws passed by legislatures weren't followed, for example the deadline for mail-in ballots in PA, which was extended until 5 P.M on November 5 even though the law on the books is explicit that ballots postmarked after election day were invalid. The fact that a court upheld the view in contradiction with fairly plain language of the law caused some controversy. The above doesn't mean "The election was stolen". It doesn't mean it would have turned out differently. But I think there is some room for debate. Even though Trump is aggrandizing the issue politicians do that all the time and aren't de-platformed for it.
- p1318820 6y ago
  The deadline for mail-in ballots was not based on delivery time, it was based on postmark time. So there is absolutely nothing wrong with a ballot arriving after 5PM November 5th, so long as it was postmarked before the cutoff. So the laws were followed, no contradiction, just a selective lack of understanding by a group of bad actors.
thewindowmovie5 6y ago
I was able to sympathise with BLM protesters because of the incidents of the past and also comparing police presence in capitol during the priest of BLM and MAGA goons. In case of MAGA goons, despites courts, a lot of which were conservative judges, and the republicans themselves not finding any evidence of election fraud which would change the result of election, they continue to try to overturn the result with force. They are acting in bad faith. The fact that more than 70 million people support this is the chilling part.
select-all 6y ago
But that's exactly what happens, for example, in Russia or Belarus. The opposition claims the election was rigged, the court dismisses these claims, and the government uses the law against inciting violence to silence and or jail the opposition. And it is nearly impossible to prove that the elections in the whole were rigged - in the best case they have a proof on a number of episodes that total in, let's say, 100k of votes, but that still doesn't prove the overall result is falsified.
- theelous3 6y ago
  Right, but in russian elections you can look for indicators of election fraud and find them by the dozen, and in the US you cannot. In russia, all of the party's officials are complicit stooges going along with the narrative that threy totally won by 92%, where as im the US even the VP is acknowledging his loss. There are no markers or evidence of any kind. Nobody can even come up with plausible stories nevermind facts. So should we really be making the comparison to two of the most obviously corrupt states on earth? Does that help the conversation or just muddy the waters?
  - dvdkon 6y ago
    The waters are already muddy. Remember that we are discussing this in the context of censoring speech, "are there plausible stories" can't be the deciding factor in that.
    - theelous3 6y ago
      Right, but what I'm saying is that the grey areas in life can be resolved through examination of indicators, and "is there a plausible story" is one of them. It's stronger in some scenarios than others. For example, it's pretty much the only indicator you need to dismiss more outragerous claims like flat-earthers. The simple question of "what would be the point" is enough to dismiss nearly all of that spectrum of conspiracy theory - wherein no reason that makes a modicum of sense can be given. "Hur dur, because control the populous" or something is generally the best that can be mustered, and asking how or why leads only to more dead ends. Likewise, trying to come up with a story about why both his own party and the opposing party and a large number of his own base and the entirety of the opposition's base will lead to no plausible story.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
SpaceRaccoon 6y ago
Interesting. 2/3rds of Dems believe that Russia tampered with vote tallies for Trump [0]- i.e. stole the 2016 election. Who's being held accountable there? [0] https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2018/03/09/russias-impact-election-seen-through-partisan-eyes https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/20...
duke252 6y ago
There are people that gather every year to celebrate aliens. If a fight breaks out at a ufo fair and people get hurt do we arrest everyone that said they saw a ufo? Do we take away their platform? Who decides where to draw the line?

by jjeaff 6y ago

oceanplexian 6y ago

A few of those arguments don't require evidence, since they were matters of law vs. matters of fact. One of the arguments made was that laws passed by legislatures weren't followed, for example the deadline for mail-in ballots in PA, which was extended until 5 P.M on November 5 even though the law on the books is explicit that ballots postmarked after election day were invalid. The fact that a court upheld the view in contradiction with fairly plain language of the law caused some controversy. The above doesn't mean "The election was stolen". It doesn't mean it would have turned out differently. But I think there is some room for debate. Even though Trump is aggrandizing the issue politicians do that all the time and aren't de-platformed for it.

p1318820 6y ago
The deadline for mail-in ballots was not based on delivery time, it was based on postmark time. So there is absolutely nothing wrong with a ballot arriving after 5PM November 5th, so long as it was postmarked before the cutoff. So the laws were followed, no contradiction, just a selective lack of understanding by a group of bad actors.

thewindowmovie5 6y ago

I was able to sympathise with BLM protesters because of the incidents of the past and also comparing police presence in capitol during the priest of BLM and MAGA goons. In case of MAGA goons, despites courts, a lot of which were conservative judges, and the republicans themselves not finding any evidence of election fraud which would change the result of election, they continue to try to overturn the result with force. They are acting in bad faith. The fact that more than 70 million people support this is the chilling part.

select-all 6y ago

But that's exactly what happens, for example, in Russia or Belarus. The opposition claims the election was rigged, the court dismisses these claims, and the government uses the law against inciting violence to silence and or jail the opposition. And it is nearly impossible to prove that the elections in the whole were rigged - in the best case they have a proof on a number of episodes that total in, let's say, 100k of votes, but that still doesn't prove the overall result is falsified.

theelous3 6y ago
Right, but in russian elections you can look for indicators of election fraud and find them by the dozen, and in the US you cannot. In russia, all of the party's officials are complicit stooges going along with the narrative that threy totally won by 92%, where as im the US even the VP is acknowledging his loss. There are no markers or evidence of any kind. Nobody can even come up with plausible stories nevermind facts. So should we really be making the comparison to two of the most obviously corrupt states on earth? Does that help the conversation or just muddy the waters?
- dvdkon 6y ago
  The waters are already muddy. Remember that we are discussing this in the context of censoring speech, "are there plausible stories" can't be the deciding factor in that.
  - theelous3 6y ago
    Right, but what I'm saying is that the grey areas in life can be resolved through examination of indicators, and "is there a plausible story" is one of them. It's stronger in some scenarios than others. For example, it's pretty much the only indicator you need to dismiss more outragerous claims like flat-earthers. The simple question of "what would be the point" is enough to dismiss nearly all of that spectrum of conspiracy theory - wherein no reason that makes a modicum of sense can be given. "Hur dur, because control the populous" or something is generally the best that can be mustered, and asking how or why leads only to more dead ends. Likewise, trying to come up with a story about why both his own party and the opposing party and a large number of his own base and the entirety of the opposition's base will lead to no plausible story.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

SpaceRaccoon 6y ago

Interesting. 2/3rds of Dems believe that Russia tampered with vote tallies for Trump [0]- i.e. stole the 2016 election. Who's being held accountable there? [0] https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2018/03/09/russias-impact-election-seen-through-partisan-eyes https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/20...

duke252 6y ago

There are people that gather every year to celebrate aliens. If a fight breaks out at a ufo fair and people get hurt do we arrest everyone that said they saw a ufo? Do we take away their platform? Who decides where to draw the line?