4 ms·

Should discussion of election fraud be stifled due to “absence of evidence” then?

• ceejayoz 6y ago
  People alleging election fraud should present evidence of it. People alleging human-to-human transmission of a pathogen should similarly present evidence of it. Within a week of that tweet, the WHO had said evidence in hand. (https://www.who.int/china/news/detail/22-01-2020-field-visit-wuhan-china-jan-2020 https://www.who.int/china/news/detail/22-01-2020-field-visit...)
  • offby37years 6y ago
    > People alleging election fraud should present evidence of it. Agreed, which is exactly why the topic should not be verboten.
    • ceejayoz 6y ago
      It isn't. They slap a warning label on clear falsehoods. (Not very effectively, I might add. If you think the subject can't be discussed on Twitter, you don't use Twitter much.) Trump's suspension was for inciting violence.
      • swader999 6y ago
        That was the first phase, now you are banned if you suggest or present evidence contrary to the outcome.
        • ceejayoz 6y ago
          I suspect we have differing definitions of evidence.
          • swader999 6y ago
            Two thousand signed affidavits. Quite the conspiracy for all of them to make it up.
  • swader999 6y ago
    You can't argue or present evidence regarding the election on Twitter if it's favorable to Trump right now.
    • deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]