16 ms·

The Lies that can Undermine Democracy

100 points by joeyespo 6y ago

Kharvok 6y ago
First paragraph and we're already at Nazis. Pass
- blueblob 6y ago
  Second paragraph... glad we can all count.
- Grimm1 6y ago
  There are obvious parallels to draw.
- Pfhreak 6y ago
  A common saying is, "Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it." The key idea in the second paragraph is that serious events might look silly or comical at first, but should not be ignored. Read about the Beer Hall Putsch, about how it was characterized by contemporaries, about it's efficacy, and it's not totally unreasonable to say, "Is this a modern version of that event?"
  - sol_invictus 6y ago
    Correct. Now if we could only treat modern communists with the same zeal. A friendly reminder: communism has killed, by some accounts, at least 65 million people during the last century. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_...
    - Pfhreak 6y ago
      Are you lumping socialists in with communists? Leftists? And which communists are you concerned about (e.g. council communism? Autocratic communists? Stalinists? Maoists?) Wheeling out 'communism' without qualifying who your bogeyman is based in a very, very shallow understanding of history. > communism has killed, by some accounts, at least 65 million people during the last century. Ok, but so has capitalism? Millions killed by lack of health care, capitalism fueled famines, wars over resources, pursuit of profit over quality, etc. It also ignores the massive genocides historically in capitalism. Again, you are evaluating some very surface traits and not really looking at holistic systems. Your argument is a vague sound bite, but isn't really an attempt to meaningfully engage with the topic.
      - sol_invictus 6y ago
        As the right flirts with nazism, the left flirts with communism. I dont think its particularly surprising and doesnt require deeper meta-analysis as youre trying to propose.
        Pfhreak 6y ago
        I'm a socialist, but I'm not a communist. I especially oppose planned economies and the idea of an autocratic workers party. Am I 'flirting with communism' because I believe in universal health care, free education, public housing, public transportation, a strong social safety net, and a strong democratic process?
- rvense 6y ago
  There was at least one man at the "event" who thought it was funny to wear a shirt that said CAMP AUSCHWITZ on the front and STAFF on the back.
Grimm1 6y ago
This was flagged dead. I vouched for it. There is nothing in here that is beyond discussion imo and we are still well into a situation in the US that requires discussion like this and this is a sufficiently nuanced take.
- sol_invictus 6y ago
  There is nothing new nor particularly insightful about this article. It's the same tired self-inflated story about how Trump supporters are idiots and if only we could somehow educate them how our POV is right, this would all go away. If anyone was truly interested in resolving this conflict the talk would be about how to reach consensus and peace between the extremes. But no, it's this constant self-congratulatory stream of "news" and opinion pieces as if they've invented something completely novel. Notice I said the extremes. The radical postmodernists are just dangerous as gun-yielding rednecks.
  - Grimm1 6y ago
    You're reading of it doesn't line up. Not only is he sympathetic towards people who fell for Trump's bullshit he aligns with the thought that larger tech companies should be more scrutinized and regulated.
  - mcguire 6y ago
    Reaching "consensus" with anti-vaxxers is unlikely to result in a valid science-based policy. Seeking peace with people who want, and are willing to say anything to get, to destroy society is a losing strategy. Picture this: it's the 80s and you're arguing for consensus between the extremes of creationism and science. But no, those scientists keep trotting out those "self-congratulatory stream of "[facts]" and opinion pieces as if they've invented something completely novel.” (As far as I know, radical postmodernists have never attempted to attack the US Capitol.)
    - sol_invictus 6y ago
      A software developer writing guesswork on an infinitely complex social issue is hardly comparable to a scientist examining vaccines.
2038AD 6y ago
My prediction is that countries will appear less democratic in the future whether or not those against democracy succeed. Advocates of democracy will write articles and think pieces about how delicate democracy is and how we must protect it and the enemies of democracy will turn around and agree. I do not look forward to it.
- smitty1e 6y ago
  As cyberspace seems to take the tyrannical turn, look for lower-tech forms of communication to grow popular. We could even see 18th-century pamphleteering again as ideas seek to escape the zampolit.
williamstein 6y ago
> "By politicizing mask-wearing he could be responsible for killing more Americans than any other person in our history."
ihsw 6y ago
The lies of the left far exceed what has come out of Trump's mouth, much less the right's. Funny how there were zero attempts at squashing the lies of the left (eg: the Russia hoax, the Steele dossier, Trump being a racist, the stolen-election recriminations, "mostly peaceful" protests, masks work-but-don't-work, etc etc etc.) There is no room for truth anymore, we are well past the truth. Those that were supposed to be arbiters of truth (fifth estate) abandoned their responsibility and embraced Trump Derangement Syndrome. It's sad that this is where we've gone and the people supposedly interested in preventing the undermining of democracy, the rule of law, bipartisanship, and political unity are now attempting to steer the conversation again. No, you who are squawking about 'lies,' 'riots,' and 'democracy' have already lost all credibility. Double standards
- 24gttghh 6y ago
  It's funny that your lies about the left are lies themselves. Actually, it's not funny and it's how trump whipped up thousands of people to attempt a coup last week.
- ipsocannibal 6y ago
  This comment is laced with the same tired hostile factless memes that are the standard currency of unproductive comments. Take this crap to Twitter
  - ihsw 6y ago
    Martin Fowler's entire post is a rehash of tired hostile factless memes. The whole thing is virtue signalling at its finest. That's why he wrote it and that's why it was posted on HN -- specifically to signal to the community that he's on your side and that he will serve as a lever for leverage to be applied. There is a concerted attempt across the entire industry to impose tyranny -- make a statement condemning Trump and his allies or else.
paganel 6y ago
Waiting for the likes of FB and Twitter to de-platform the PBS, after all their Principal Counsel with the name of Michael Beller thinks that Trump supporters should be sent to "re-education camps" and he also said that he would have "thrown a Molotov cocktail" on the White House had Biden not won. The video is here [1], most probably it will be taken down because it shows "our people" being as bad as "them". Those were not "lies", were direct threats coming from a person who does actively shape public opinion. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1r2rdmWsPE& https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1r2rdmWsPE&
- ipsocannibal 6y ago
  What comparison are you trying to draw? I don't think you could honestly accuse PBS of being an organization that aids in the radicalization of insurrectionists no matter what the comments of Beller are.
snakeboy 6y ago
Can someone help me to understand this election fraud stuff? I promise I'm not a quack. I pretty much ignore anything Trump has to say, since he was obviously going to say it was rigged upon losing, so his opinion contributes no info to my mental model. I keep hearing from conservatives that the actual evidence was never properly examined in court, and that the cases were mostly dismissed on issues of legal standing. Not being a lawyer, I have no idea how to interpret the legal results from any kind of objective standpoint. I feel crazy, because every rational person I usually turn to is saying that it's a settled matter, but I haven't seen any good "breakdowns" of the actual allegations and their validity. Back in November I felt pretty confident dismissing stupid Benford's law claims and sketchy graphs pointing out "Biden spikes" in Michigan. I had the data in hand and could confidently dismiss those. No fraud. I watched the whole interrogation with the PA whistleblower mailman who talked with Project VERITAS, and I came away understanding that he was paranoid and confused and probably in way over his head. No fraud. Electronic voting has always been criticized, so I don't know why this year should be any different. But that just seems worse, that potentially decades' worth of elections could have been tampered with if any of those Dominion claims are true? But it's been weeks and weeks and there was a bunch of "evidence" since then, and I don't have the time or energy or legal expertise to make any sense of them. I feel like I'm going crazy because all my moderate/liberal friends are convinced it's the stuff of conspiracy theories. This is keeping me up at night, feeling like the whole exercise of democracy could be a total sham, and possibly always was. Is anyone else having this epistemic crisis since November? Is this how people become conspiracy theorists? Can anyone else relate?
- igammarays 6y ago
  There are some convincing arguments made by data scientists examining time-series data. Most of the results are suppressed from Google, if you try searching "Lynda McLaughlin from the Data Integrity Group" you can find more info using Yandex or Bing. > According to their analysis, which was published online as early as Dec. 24, time-series election data shows Trump’s votes were decrementing in various counties instead of increasing as they do normally. > At least 30,593 votes were allegedly removed from Trump as result, including 17,650 votes in Dougherty County, 7,008 votes in Dodge County, and 5,935 votes in Putnam County. This is by simple analysis of time-series data that was posted to public sources like the New York Times. There was an open-source repository on Github with the analysis, but it has since been removed. I regret not downloading a copy. [1] https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/01/theres_evidence_of_vanished_votes_in_pennsylvania.html https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/01/theres_evidence...
igammarays 6y ago
A lie is intentional. If a person legitimately believes the election was fraudulent, even if it was not, it's not a lie. It's a mistaken belief. Calling the other side liars is precisely the kind of polarizing rhetoric that can undermine democracy. They are not liars if they legitimately believe what they are saying. 70% of Republican voters and some 10% of Democrat voters actually do believe there was election fraud [1]. The way to combat mistaken beliefs is to allow them to voice their views, then refute their arguments, not to call them liars and suppress their views. And even if they do not accept the refutation, the arguments should be left up for people to read and make their informed choice. [1] https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/09/republicans-free-fair-elections-435488 https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/09/republicans-free-fa...
- JoeAltmaier 6y ago
  I wish it were true. Its past that now. Folks believe things without evidence. Then they believe the court cases were thrown out, not for lack of evidence (which is ok with them) but because its fixed somehow. There really is a threat of out-of-control baseless indignation, which won't be addressed by sober debate. That's not what happened this month, and I don't see a return to that any time soon.
- rvense 6y ago
  Refuted claims are still repeated, and in many cases refuting evidence will not make people change their beliefs.
  - igammarays 6y ago
    Suppressing their views doesn't change their beliefs either. It only increases their feeling of being oppressed.
    - mcguire 6y ago
      It interferes with their ability to spread their beliefs (as well as plan violence).
    - 6y ago
motohagiography 6y ago
Parsed from outside, this piece could be the mirror image of its criticisms, which is what makes it extra interesting. It's like the myth of the Tower of Babel, where there was a divine event that caused people to be unable to understand each other, and could no longer speak the same language. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_of_Babel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_of_Babel) Our language itself has a virus in it that is spreading through minds and causing shared meaning to decohere. That's really the level of disconnect there is with about 80m Americans on either side of it.
- clairity 6y ago
  and what about the 170m other americans besides the partisans you're counting? unless you're a politician, it makes little (rational) sense to join a party (yes, it affords voting in primaries in some places, but that's little consolation, since the primary candidates are whittled down by party insiders in the first place). voters should largely be independents, but identity and signaling are such strong attractors to humans.
dudeinjapan 6y ago
I for one am shocked that a politician would lie. What has this world come to?
- ipsocannibal 6y ago
  You minimize the importance of scale of the lie. Kissing up to campaign donors or not pushing for a policy you made a campaign promise to enact are not the same as trying to throw an election result into doubt with no evidence at all. Scale matters. How far and vigorously you knowingly depart from objective fact matters. To claim otherwise is just another lie.
  - dudeinjapan 6y ago
    As a thought experiment: consider that Trump's "lies" are "fictions", not unlike a preacher who "lies" about the existence of God--or at least is missing the "objective facts" to back it up. When Trump says the "election was stolen" he is using language that implies quid-pro-quo fraud occurred. This is of course a lie; there was no such fraud. But did the pandemic cause confusion, rule changes, altered turnouts, etc.? You betcha. And did Big Tech, embarrassed by the 2016 result, take actions to ensure a different outcome this time around? It's not clear exactly because it's not public, but it appears likely. Does his base have a right to feel bitter--like a mark who lost their money at a casino--even if it was all "legal"? It's only human.
jorblumesea 6y ago
America has always had a somewhat deep seated affinity towards authoritarianism and fascism. People might forget this but various right wing leaders in Europe had large followings in the US right up until WW2. It took a huge war and government intervention to change trajectory. Similarly Hoover's FBI and the federal agencies at that time, or Nixon's whitehouse, trended towards these ideas. Social media might be a part, but it always feels like this is a longer historical trend. For as much as some Americans talk about freedom and liberty, it's not clear how much they support true freedom.
gonational 6y ago
We have allowed our egos to be so affected by contemporary politicians’ rhetoric as to forget the core principles we all want to believed in. Perhaps Trump was put in place (by somebody in a smokey room) to get the political left (who were previously notorious for promoting free-speech) to beg for censorship. Perhaps this viewpoint is cynical, but it certainly mirrors the end result we’re seeing.
- slumdev 6y ago
  > the political left (who were previously notorious for promoting free-speech) Free speech is a libertarian ideal. The libertarian right and libertarian left both support free speech. What you're seeing is the rise of the authoritarian left.
  - gonational 6y ago
    I 100% percent agree.
AzzieElbab 6y ago
I don’t understand the purpose of this article. It is a copy and paste from any mainstream newspaper and has zero new info or opinion.
- mcguire 6y ago
  The truth is like that. It's the side that is not arguing in good faith that can come up with new allegations at any time.
daebersold 6y ago
Martin Fowler, wasn't he part of a 2 week sprint through downtown Minneapolis? Wait, wow, would you look at that burndown.
brandmeyer 6y ago
> 139 Representatives and 8 senators voted to overturn the will of the people after rioters had gone home. Most, I assume, know full well that there's no credible evidence the election was fraudulent, but their fear of a primary challenge outweighs their oath to defend the constitution. This is a very common meme that I think we should combat. In the absence of evidence that these elected officials believe something contrary to their actions, we should instead assume that their actions actually do follow their beliefs.
- mcguire 6y ago
  At what point do you decide that someone is not speaking in good faith? The tenth time you point out the evidence that their beliefs are wrong? When they call for your execution?
  - brandmeyer 6y ago
    "Stop lying!" is ineffective, because they don't think they are lying. They are believing things to be true based on circumstantial evidence and wishful thinking because they actively want to believe it is true. IMO, if Trump and Cruz and all the rest are lying then they first and foremost lied to themselves. And it is ferociously difficult to convince someone that they are lying to themselves. IMO, folks didn't take away the right lessons from the justification for the Iraq War. Those in charge believed the shoddy evidence for WMDs because they were actively looking for evidence that supported their POV and would justify the actions they wanted to take. The lesson should be to demand a higher evidentiary standard before you act on it. To be cold and dispassionate about that evaluation. I remember watching Colin Powell's presentation to the UN. There is no doubt in my mind that he believed in what he was saying. Nevertheless, dispassionate observers could tell that this was not hard evidence. "Trust us, its well-supported," cannot be sufficient justification for actions on the scale of "invade another country" or "overturn an election". Nobody should accept that any more.
    - mcguire 6y ago
      When someone accuses me of lying, I try to dredge up the evidence that backs up my beliefs and present it. If I cannot, I admit I am wrong or at least do not have any evidence for my beliefs, as I am not a complete degenerate. I hold everyone else to these same standards. In cases where I'm actually lying...well, I try not to do that as I don't think it's a long-term winning strategy. (I could be wrong about that.)
julianmarq 6y ago
> I don't have much confidence in how to counter it. It feels like a big chunk of our population have got sucked into a cult - how do you deprogram so many people? Up until this point, I was very much agreeing with his take, but from this point forward it devolves into the usual paternalistic, quietly self-righteous and "subtly" anti free speech narrative this type of articles way too often seem to take. This was a little sad to read. I used to think that Fowler was one of the smartest people I know about, I've now corrected that to he's one of the most "knowledgeable on software engineering and architecture" people I know about.

100 points by joeyespo 6y ago

Kharvok 6y ago

First paragraph and we're already at Nazis. Pass

blueblob 6y ago
Second paragraph... glad we can all count.
Grimm1 6y ago
There are obvious parallels to draw.
Pfhreak 6y ago
A common saying is, "Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it." The key idea in the second paragraph is that serious events might look silly or comical at first, but should not be ignored. Read about the Beer Hall Putsch, about how it was characterized by contemporaries, about it's efficacy, and it's not totally unreasonable to say, "Is this a modern version of that event?"
- sol_invictus 6y ago
  Correct. Now if we could only treat modern communists with the same zeal. A friendly reminder: communism has killed, by some accounts, at least 65 million people during the last century. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_...
  - Pfhreak 6y ago
    Are you lumping socialists in with communists? Leftists? And which communists are you concerned about (e.g. council communism? Autocratic communists? Stalinists? Maoists?) Wheeling out 'communism' without qualifying who your bogeyman is based in a very, very shallow understanding of history. > communism has killed, by some accounts, at least 65 million people during the last century. Ok, but so has capitalism? Millions killed by lack of health care, capitalism fueled famines, wars over resources, pursuit of profit over quality, etc. It also ignores the massive genocides historically in capitalism. Again, you are evaluating some very surface traits and not really looking at holistic systems. Your argument is a vague sound bite, but isn't really an attempt to meaningfully engage with the topic.
    - sol_invictus 6y ago
      As the right flirts with nazism, the left flirts with communism. I dont think its particularly surprising and doesnt require deeper meta-analysis as youre trying to propose.
      - Pfhreak 6y ago
        I'm a socialist, but I'm not a communist. I especially oppose planned economies and the idea of an autocratic workers party. Am I 'flirting with communism' because I believe in universal health care, free education, public housing, public transportation, a strong social safety net, and a strong democratic process?
rvense 6y ago
There was at least one man at the "event" who thought it was funny to wear a shirt that said CAMP AUSCHWITZ on the front and STAFF on the back.

Grimm1 6y ago

This was flagged dead. I vouched for it. There is nothing in here that is beyond discussion imo and we are still well into a situation in the US that requires discussion like this and this is a sufficiently nuanced take.

sol_invictus 6y ago
There is nothing new nor particularly insightful about this article. It's the same tired self-inflated story about how Trump supporters are idiots and if only we could somehow educate them how our POV is right, this would all go away. If anyone was truly interested in resolving this conflict the talk would be about how to reach consensus and peace between the extremes. But no, it's this constant self-congratulatory stream of "news" and opinion pieces as if they've invented something completely novel. Notice I said the extremes. The radical postmodernists are just dangerous as gun-yielding rednecks.
- Grimm1 6y ago
  You're reading of it doesn't line up. Not only is he sympathetic towards people who fell for Trump's bullshit he aligns with the thought that larger tech companies should be more scrutinized and regulated.
- mcguire 6y ago
  Reaching "consensus" with anti-vaxxers is unlikely to result in a valid science-based policy. Seeking peace with people who want, and are willing to say anything to get, to destroy society is a losing strategy. Picture this: it's the 80s and you're arguing for consensus between the extremes of creationism and science. But no, those scientists keep trotting out those "self-congratulatory stream of "[facts]" and opinion pieces as if they've invented something completely novel.” (As far as I know, radical postmodernists have never attempted to attack the US Capitol.)
  - sol_invictus 6y ago
    A software developer writing guesswork on an infinitely complex social issue is hardly comparable to a scientist examining vaccines.

2038AD 6y ago

My prediction is that countries will appear less democratic in the future whether or not those against democracy succeed. Advocates of democracy will write articles and think pieces about how delicate democracy is and how we must protect it and the enemies of democracy will turn around and agree. I do not look forward to it.

smitty1e 6y ago
As cyberspace seems to take the tyrannical turn, look for lower-tech forms of communication to grow popular. We could even see 18th-century pamphleteering again as ideas seek to escape the zampolit.

williamstein 6y ago

> "By politicizing mask-wearing he could be responsible for killing more Americans than any other person in our history."

ihsw 6y ago

The lies of the left far exceed what has come out of Trump's mouth, much less the right's. Funny how there were zero attempts at squashing the lies of the left (eg: the Russia hoax, the Steele dossier, Trump being a racist, the stolen-election recriminations, "mostly peaceful" protests, masks work-but-don't-work, etc etc etc.) There is no room for truth anymore, we are well past the truth. Those that were supposed to be arbiters of truth (fifth estate) abandoned their responsibility and embraced Trump Derangement Syndrome. It's sad that this is where we've gone and the people supposedly interested in preventing the undermining of democracy, the rule of law, bipartisanship, and political unity are now attempting to steer the conversation again. No, you who are squawking about 'lies,' 'riots,' and 'democracy' have already lost all credibility. Double standards

24gttghh 6y ago
It's funny that your lies about the left are lies themselves. Actually, it's not funny and it's how trump whipped up thousands of people to attempt a coup last week.
ipsocannibal 6y ago
This comment is laced with the same tired hostile factless memes that are the standard currency of unproductive comments. Take this crap to Twitter
- ihsw 6y ago
  Martin Fowler's entire post is a rehash of tired hostile factless memes. The whole thing is virtue signalling at its finest. That's why he wrote it and that's why it was posted on HN -- specifically to signal to the community that he's on your side and that he will serve as a lever for leverage to be applied. There is a concerted attempt across the entire industry to impose tyranny -- make a statement condemning Trump and his allies or else.

paganel 6y ago

Waiting for the likes of FB and Twitter to de-platform the PBS, after all their Principal Counsel with the name of Michael Beller thinks that Trump supporters should be sent to "re-education camps" and he also said that he would have "thrown a Molotov cocktail" on the White House had Biden not won. The video is here [1], most probably it will be taken down because it shows "our people" being as bad as "them". Those were not "lies", were direct threats coming from a person who does actively shape public opinion. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1r2rdmWsPE& https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1r2rdmWsPE&

ipsocannibal 6y ago
What comparison are you trying to draw? I don't think you could honestly accuse PBS of being an organization that aids in the radicalization of insurrectionists no matter what the comments of Beller are.

snakeboy 6y ago

Can someone help me to understand this election fraud stuff? I promise I'm not a quack. I pretty much ignore anything Trump has to say, since he was obviously going to say it was rigged upon losing, so his opinion contributes no info to my mental model. I keep hearing from conservatives that the actual evidence was never properly examined in court, and that the cases were mostly dismissed on issues of legal standing. Not being a lawyer, I have no idea how to interpret the legal results from any kind of objective standpoint. I feel crazy, because every rational person I usually turn to is saying that it's a settled matter, but I haven't seen any good "breakdowns" of the actual allegations and their validity. Back in November I felt pretty confident dismissing stupid Benford's law claims and sketchy graphs pointing out "Biden spikes" in Michigan. I had the data in hand and could confidently dismiss those. No fraud. I watched the whole interrogation with the PA whistleblower mailman who talked with Project VERITAS, and I came away understanding that he was paranoid and confused and probably in way over his head. No fraud. Electronic voting has always been criticized, so I don't know why this year should be any different. But that just seems worse, that potentially decades' worth of elections could have been tampered with if any of those Dominion claims are true? But it's been weeks and weeks and there was a bunch of "evidence" since then, and I don't have the time or energy or legal expertise to make any sense of them. I feel like I'm going crazy because all my moderate/liberal friends are convinced it's the stuff of conspiracy theories. This is keeping me up at night, feeling like the whole exercise of democracy could be a total sham, and possibly always was. Is anyone else having this epistemic crisis since November? Is this how people become conspiracy theorists? Can anyone else relate?

igammarays 6y ago
There are some convincing arguments made by data scientists examining time-series data. Most of the results are suppressed from Google, if you try searching "Lynda McLaughlin from the Data Integrity Group" you can find more info using Yandex or Bing. > According to their analysis, which was published online as early as Dec. 24, time-series election data shows Trump’s votes were decrementing in various counties instead of increasing as they do normally. > At least 30,593 votes were allegedly removed from Trump as result, including 17,650 votes in Dougherty County, 7,008 votes in Dodge County, and 5,935 votes in Putnam County. This is by simple analysis of time-series data that was posted to public sources like the New York Times. There was an open-source repository on Github with the analysis, but it has since been removed. I regret not downloading a copy. [1] https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/01/theres_evidence_of_vanished_votes_in_pennsylvania.html https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/01/theres_evidence...

igammarays 6y ago

A lie is intentional. If a person legitimately believes the election was fraudulent, even if it was not, it's not a lie. It's a mistaken belief. Calling the other side liars is precisely the kind of polarizing rhetoric that can undermine democracy. They are not liars if they legitimately believe what they are saying. 70% of Republican voters and some 10% of Democrat voters actually do believe there was election fraud [1]. The way to combat mistaken beliefs is to allow them to voice their views, then refute their arguments, not to call them liars and suppress their views. And even if they do not accept the refutation, the arguments should be left up for people to read and make their informed choice. [1] https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/09/republicans-free-fair-elections-435488 https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/09/republicans-free-fa...

JoeAltmaier 6y ago
I wish it were true. Its past that now. Folks believe things without evidence. Then they believe the court cases were thrown out, not for lack of evidence (which is ok with them) but because its fixed somehow. There really is a threat of out-of-control baseless indignation, which won't be addressed by sober debate. That's not what happened this month, and I don't see a return to that any time soon.
rvense 6y ago
Refuted claims are still repeated, and in many cases refuting evidence will not make people change their beliefs.
- igammarays 6y ago
  Suppressing their views doesn't change their beliefs either. It only increases their feeling of being oppressed.
  - mcguire 6y ago
    It interferes with their ability to spread their beliefs (as well as plan violence).
  - 6y ago

motohagiography 6y ago

Parsed from outside, this piece could be the mirror image of its criticisms, which is what makes it extra interesting. It's like the myth of the Tower of Babel, where there was a divine event that caused people to be unable to understand each other, and could no longer speak the same language. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_of_Babel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_of_Babel) Our language itself has a virus in it that is spreading through minds and causing shared meaning to decohere. That's really the level of disconnect there is with about 80m Americans on either side of it.

clairity 6y ago
and what about the 170m other americans besides the partisans you're counting? unless you're a politician, it makes little (rational) sense to join a party (yes, it affords voting in primaries in some places, but that's little consolation, since the primary candidates are whittled down by party insiders in the first place). voters should largely be independents, but identity and signaling are such strong attractors to humans.

dudeinjapan 6y ago

I for one am shocked that a politician would lie. What has this world come to?

ipsocannibal 6y ago
You minimize the importance of scale of the lie. Kissing up to campaign donors or not pushing for a policy you made a campaign promise to enact are not the same as trying to throw an election result into doubt with no evidence at all. Scale matters. How far and vigorously you knowingly depart from objective fact matters. To claim otherwise is just another lie.
- dudeinjapan 6y ago
  As a thought experiment: consider that Trump's "lies" are "fictions", not unlike a preacher who "lies" about the existence of God--or at least is missing the "objective facts" to back it up. When Trump says the "election was stolen" he is using language that implies quid-pro-quo fraud occurred. This is of course a lie; there was no such fraud. But did the pandemic cause confusion, rule changes, altered turnouts, etc.? You betcha. And did Big Tech, embarrassed by the 2016 result, take actions to ensure a different outcome this time around? It's not clear exactly because it's not public, but it appears likely. Does his base have a right to feel bitter--like a mark who lost their money at a casino--even if it was all "legal"? It's only human.

jorblumesea 6y ago

America has always had a somewhat deep seated affinity towards authoritarianism and fascism. People might forget this but various right wing leaders in Europe had large followings in the US right up until WW2. It took a huge war and government intervention to change trajectory. Similarly Hoover's FBI and the federal agencies at that time, or Nixon's whitehouse, trended towards these ideas. Social media might be a part, but it always feels like this is a longer historical trend. For as much as some Americans talk about freedom and liberty, it's not clear how much they support true freedom.

gonational 6y ago

We have allowed our egos to be so affected by contemporary politicians’ rhetoric as to forget the core principles we all want to believed in. Perhaps Trump was put in place (by somebody in a smokey room) to get the political left (who were previously notorious for promoting free-speech) to beg for censorship. Perhaps this viewpoint is cynical, but it certainly mirrors the end result we’re seeing.

slumdev 6y ago
> the political left (who were previously notorious for promoting free-speech) Free speech is a libertarian ideal. The libertarian right and libertarian left both support free speech. What you're seeing is the rise of the authoritarian left.
- gonational 6y ago
  I 100% percent agree.

AzzieElbab 6y ago

I don’t understand the purpose of this article. It is a copy and paste from any mainstream newspaper and has zero new info or opinion.

mcguire 6y ago
The truth is like that. It's the side that is not arguing in good faith that can come up with new allegations at any time.

daebersold 6y ago

Martin Fowler, wasn't he part of a 2 week sprint through downtown Minneapolis? Wait, wow, would you look at that burndown.

brandmeyer 6y ago

> 139 Representatives and 8 senators voted to overturn the will of the people after rioters had gone home. Most, I assume, know full well that there's no credible evidence the election was fraudulent, but their fear of a primary challenge outweighs their oath to defend the constitution. This is a very common meme that I think we should combat. In the absence of evidence that these elected officials believe something contrary to their actions, we should instead assume that their actions actually do follow their beliefs.

mcguire 6y ago
At what point do you decide that someone is not speaking in good faith? The tenth time you point out the evidence that their beliefs are wrong? When they call for your execution?
- brandmeyer 6y ago
  "Stop lying!" is ineffective, because they don't think they are lying. They are believing things to be true based on circumstantial evidence and wishful thinking because they actively want to believe it is true. IMO, if Trump and Cruz and all the rest are lying then they first and foremost lied to themselves. And it is ferociously difficult to convince someone that they are lying to themselves. IMO, folks didn't take away the right lessons from the justification for the Iraq War. Those in charge believed the shoddy evidence for WMDs because they were actively looking for evidence that supported their POV and would justify the actions they wanted to take. The lesson should be to demand a higher evidentiary standard before you act on it. To be cold and dispassionate about that evaluation. I remember watching Colin Powell's presentation to the UN. There is no doubt in my mind that he believed in what he was saying. Nevertheless, dispassionate observers could tell that this was not hard evidence. "Trust us, its well-supported," cannot be sufficient justification for actions on the scale of "invade another country" or "overturn an election". Nobody should accept that any more.
  - mcguire 6y ago
    When someone accuses me of lying, I try to dredge up the evidence that backs up my beliefs and present it. If I cannot, I admit I am wrong or at least do not have any evidence for my beliefs, as I am not a complete degenerate. I hold everyone else to these same standards. In cases where I'm actually lying...well, I try not to do that as I don't think it's a long-term winning strategy. (I could be wrong about that.)

julianmarq 6y ago

> I don't have much confidence in how to counter it. It feels like a big chunk of our population have got sucked into a cult - how do you deprogram so many people? Up until this point, I was very much agreeing with his take, but from this point forward it devolves into the usual paternalistic, quietly self-righteous and "subtly" anti free speech narrative this type of articles way too often seem to take. This was a little sad to read. I used to think that Fowler was one of the smartest people I know about, I've now corrected that to he's one of the most "knowledgeable on software engineering and architecture" people I know about.