3 ms·

This is a neat analogy, but ultimately not quite true. I believe that Trump followers believe him, for the most part. The insurrection on Capital Hill was mad

by jariel 6y ago

This is a neat analogy, but ultimately not quite true. I believe that Trump followers believe him, for the most part. The insurrection on Capital Hill was made by people who very deeply felt that the 'Election Was Stolen' and therefore Democracy itself was at stake. (There were several interviews by the press that highlighted this). It's rational for someone to take reasonably dramatic action if they believed there were fraud at a fundamental level - so on a way - the actions of the protesters are understandable in a perverse kind of way, with the assumption that they are completely misinformed. For the the 'not so gullible', the lie, repeated over and over again just has a ring of truth to it - enough that somewhere about 50% of the US believes that the 'elections were unfair' in some way, when in reality, that's not anywhere near the truth - the election was fair and free. There weren't any systematic shenanigans. This means that a ton of 'regular, educated followers' buy into the BS at least partially. And of course, since it's partisan, and some people 'want to believe it' - it's easier to believe. The real question then becomes: will the gullible and not-so-gullible-but-partisan accept actual, material evidence when it's presented? That's where you possibly meet the 'truly stubborn'. Finally - in the efforts to get the truth out, a lot of these kinds of people have basically no faith in important institutions such as 'Science', the Judiciary, the DOJ etc.. Though most of the press is fairly legit, they are also biased, and so most plebes don't want to trust them either. We are in a 'War for the Truth' right now it's a big deal with Politics, COVID, issues of Freedom of Expression (which includes the right to lie) etc..

pdonis 6y ago
> will the gullible and not-so-gullible-but-partisan accept actual, material evidence when it's presented? What is being presented is not evidence. It's absence of evidence, combined with blunt assertions. That's not what we should be getting from a truly secure election system. Years ago, the kernel.org servers that host the source code to the Linux kernel were hacked. Lots of people and lots of corporations use Linux, so the security of the source code of the kernel is a serious issue. So what did the owners of the kernel.org site do? Did they shout over and over that there was no problem? Did they make a huge effort to argue against people (and there were plenty of them) who claimed this showed Linux was just not a serious OS, as compared to those other OSs owned by large corporations? No. What the kernel.org owners did was much simpler. They just showed the security measures they already had in place, and explained how and why they worked. And since those security measures were good ones, based on cryptographically secure methods of signing and verifying code and detecting tampering, and since they were open, so anyone who wanted to could check and verify them, that was all they had to do. All the accusations and speculations about insecurity simply evaporated. That is the kind of security we should have for elections. And it's blatantly obvious that we don't. And until we do, given how divided the country is, we will continue to have close elections that the losing side, or at least a significant portion of it, refuses to recognize as legitimate. This problem cannot be handwaved away, and it cannot be solved by shouting louder, the way Americans do in foreign countries in the hope that it will cause the natives to start understanding English. It can only be solved by implementing a secure, and transparently secure, election system, where nobody has to take anybody else's word that nothing questionable happened.
- jariel 6y ago
  This isn't going to work. 1) There is an incredible amount of legitimacy and transparency in the system already. Your linux analogy simply doesn't apply. There are tons of 'eyes on the system', there are literally election observers. The rules are decided ahead of time etc.. With the 'Dominion' system there is literally a paper record of each ballot - there were recounts that validated the electronic counts perfectly. The 'voting and ballot' part of the election is very secure, and there's no way to systematically defeat it. 2) If there is an issue with the elections, it's related to 'who can vote'. States are in a constant war over this, the rules over 'how to purge voter roles' (look into recent Georgia rulings). Those things, are today 'grey areas' not well defined by anyone so it means conflict. 3) "And it's blatantly obvious that we don't. " Just the opposite, it's blatantly obvious that the elections are in fact secure - you've provided zero evidence to suggest otherwise. But you're missing the issue - the perception of election of integrity has nothing to do with election integrity. This has nothing to do with the facts. This has to do with whatever Trump tells people (i.e. Cargo Cult). If Trump had won the election, there would be zero concern over election integrity because it's entirely derided from his populist narrative. The elections are as secure as they were in 2016 and 2012 - and there wasn't some big uproar over 'ballot counting' then, was there? Why not? Because 'some populist figure' wasn't screaming 'Fraud' 'Fraud' 'Fraud'. And even if the election were 'mathematically secure' it still would not matter because this has nothing to do with reality, it has to do with narrative. A populist figure will say 'The Election Was Stolen' - and his Cargo Cult followers will believe him, irrespective of the facts.
  - pdonis 6y ago
    > there are literally election observers Who are placed far enough away from what is happening that they can't usefully verify anything. What we should have are election workers from each party, paired up, with transparently verifiable means of confirming that they both agree on every action taken. > The rules are decided ahead of time And then those rules, established by the State legislatures ahead of time in accordance with the Constitution and Federal election law, are changed by State executive branch officials and judges. That is clearly unconstitutional. > With the 'Dominion' system there is literally a paper record of each ballot Printed out by a computer system with known vulnerabilities and laughable "security" precautions. > there were recounts that validated the electronic counts perfectly By counting ballots which were printed by the same machines that gave the electronic counts, so this so-called "check" is meaningless. > If there is an issue with the elections, it's related to 'who can vote'. Yep. The way to solve that is obvious: voter IDs with simple, objectively verifiable rules for eligibility and a requirement that every eligible voter must be issued one. Other countries have this. Mexico has this. Why can't we? > If Trump had won the election, there would be zero concern over election integrity because it's entirely derided from his populist narrative. Excuse me? Trump won the 2016 election and for four years we've been hearing concerns over election integrity from the side that lost that one. Sure, those concerns weren't coming from Trump supporters, because Trump won. And now, as you yourself illustrate, Trump opponents have no concerns whatever despite multiple issues at least as blatant as any of the ones Trump opponents complained about in 2016, because Trump lost. In other words, the winning side will never complain and the losing side always will, because the system is broken.
pdonis 6y ago
> a lot of these kinds of people have basically no faith in important institutions such as 'Science', the Judiciary, the DOJ etc. And that is because all of those institutions have lied to them, repeatedly, over many, many years. So has the mainstream media. So it is rational for people not to believe them when they insist, louder and louder, "no, really, this time we're telling the truth!"
prox 6y ago
Many of the problems do stem from the fact that bubbles are so easy to create. Social media has brought us the ultimate dream machine of living in your own world, where what you believe is a truth, and not only that, the algorithm will give you more of it! If we want meaningful dialogue, we need less bubbles and better avenues for discourse. Facebook and its ilk is the worst of humanity if used beyond keeping in touch with friends. The issue with Parler only gives more fuel to the ones in this particular bubble that they are being persecuted. A bubble they already believe in, a world they already mentally inhabit. We must keep striving for what you address in your comment, and for platforms for meaningful discussions, with ample focus on material truths.

by jariel 6y ago

pdonis 6y ago

> will the gullible and not-so-gullible-but-partisan accept actual, material evidence when it's presented? What is being presented is not evidence. It's absence of evidence, combined with blunt assertions. That's not what we should be getting from a truly secure election system. Years ago, the kernel.org servers that host the source code to the Linux kernel were hacked. Lots of people and lots of corporations use Linux, so the security of the source code of the kernel is a serious issue. So what did the owners of the kernel.org site do? Did they shout over and over that there was no problem? Did they make a huge effort to argue against people (and there were plenty of them) who claimed this showed Linux was just not a serious OS, as compared to those other OSs owned by large corporations? No. What the kernel.org owners did was much simpler. They just showed the security measures they already had in place, and explained how and why they worked. And since those security measures were good ones, based on cryptographically secure methods of signing and verifying code and detecting tampering, and since they were open, so anyone who wanted to could check and verify them, that was all they had to do. All the accusations and speculations about insecurity simply evaporated. That is the kind of security we should have for elections. And it's blatantly obvious that we don't. And until we do, given how divided the country is, we will continue to have close elections that the losing side, or at least a significant portion of it, refuses to recognize as legitimate. This problem cannot be handwaved away, and it cannot be solved by shouting louder, the way Americans do in foreign countries in the hope that it will cause the natives to start understanding English. It can only be solved by implementing a secure, and transparently secure, election system, where nobody has to take anybody else's word that nothing questionable happened.

jariel 6y ago
This isn't going to work. 1) There is an incredible amount of legitimacy and transparency in the system already. Your linux analogy simply doesn't apply. There are tons of 'eyes on the system', there are literally election observers. The rules are decided ahead of time etc.. With the 'Dominion' system there is literally a paper record of each ballot - there were recounts that validated the electronic counts perfectly. The 'voting and ballot' part of the election is very secure, and there's no way to systematically defeat it. 2) If there is an issue with the elections, it's related to 'who can vote'. States are in a constant war over this, the rules over 'how to purge voter roles' (look into recent Georgia rulings). Those things, are today 'grey areas' not well defined by anyone so it means conflict. 3) "And it's blatantly obvious that we don't. " Just the opposite, it's blatantly obvious that the elections are in fact secure - you've provided zero evidence to suggest otherwise. But you're missing the issue - the perception of election of integrity has nothing to do with election integrity. This has nothing to do with the facts. This has to do with whatever Trump tells people (i.e. Cargo Cult). If Trump had won the election, there would be zero concern over election integrity because it's entirely derided from his populist narrative. The elections are as secure as they were in 2016 and 2012 - and there wasn't some big uproar over 'ballot counting' then, was there? Why not? Because 'some populist figure' wasn't screaming 'Fraud' 'Fraud' 'Fraud'. And even if the election were 'mathematically secure' it still would not matter because this has nothing to do with reality, it has to do with narrative. A populist figure will say 'The Election Was Stolen' - and his Cargo Cult followers will believe him, irrespective of the facts.
- pdonis 6y ago
  > there are literally election observers Who are placed far enough away from what is happening that they can't usefully verify anything. What we should have are election workers from each party, paired up, with transparently verifiable means of confirming that they both agree on every action taken. > The rules are decided ahead of time And then those rules, established by the State legislatures ahead of time in accordance with the Constitution and Federal election law, are changed by State executive branch officials and judges. That is clearly unconstitutional. > With the 'Dominion' system there is literally a paper record of each ballot Printed out by a computer system with known vulnerabilities and laughable "security" precautions. > there were recounts that validated the electronic counts perfectly By counting ballots which were printed by the same machines that gave the electronic counts, so this so-called "check" is meaningless. > If there is an issue with the elections, it's related to 'who can vote'. Yep. The way to solve that is obvious: voter IDs with simple, objectively verifiable rules for eligibility and a requirement that every eligible voter must be issued one. Other countries have this. Mexico has this. Why can't we? > If Trump had won the election, there would be zero concern over election integrity because it's entirely derided from his populist narrative. Excuse me? Trump won the 2016 election and for four years we've been hearing concerns over election integrity from the side that lost that one. Sure, those concerns weren't coming from Trump supporters, because Trump won. And now, as you yourself illustrate, Trump opponents have no concerns whatever despite multiple issues at least as blatant as any of the ones Trump opponents complained about in 2016, because Trump lost. In other words, the winning side will never complain and the losing side always will, because the system is broken.

pdonis 6y ago

> a lot of these kinds of people have basically no faith in important institutions such as 'Science', the Judiciary, the DOJ etc. And that is because all of those institutions have lied to them, repeatedly, over many, many years. So has the mainstream media. So it is rational for people not to believe them when they insist, louder and louder, "no, really, this time we're telling the truth!"

prox 6y ago

Many of the problems do stem from the fact that bubbles are so easy to create. Social media has brought us the ultimate dream machine of living in your own world, where what you believe is a truth, and not only that, the algorithm will give you more of it! If we want meaningful dialogue, we need less bubbles and better avenues for discourse. Facebook and its ilk is the worst of humanity if used beyond keeping in touch with friends. The issue with Parler only gives more fuel to the ones in this particular bubble that they are being persecuted. A bubble they already believe in, a world they already mentally inhabit. We must keep striving for what you address in your comment, and for platforms for meaningful discussions, with ample focus on material truths.