5 ms·

So, Trump's lies about a rigged election. I'm labeling it a lie because it is. How am I a bigger liar? I'm open to hearing any explanation you have, as long as

by croon 5y ago

So, Trump's lies about a rigged election. I'm labeling it a lie because it is. How am I a bigger liar? I'm open to hearing any explanation you have, as long as you're open to hearing my rebuttals. Your generalization is a bad one, not because it has exceptions, but because it likely has as many as confirmations.

listenallyall 5y ago
Please state exactly what the lies are. That the election was rigged? Are you claiming that not a single district in a single state was compromised in any way? I'd like to see your proof. My point is not that Trump is correct... but just like I said, there are likely some kernels of truth in the statement, while you labelling it a lie is a shortcut to dismissing his entire argument without showing any proof yourself.
- croon 5y ago
  You're asking me to prove a negative. If there were any grounds for the claim, it wouldn't be a lie, but there aren't. The courts have settled it, election officials of both parties have settled it, and frankly basic understanding of the election system has settled it. I'md dismissing his entire argument because he doesn't have one outside of delusions. So I'll say it again, if you give me any substantive grounds for the lie, I can explain how it's wrong.
  - listenallyall 5y ago
    The massive expansion of vote-by-mail in the 2020 presidential election, especially in many states which had not previously planned to do so, is sufficient to cast some doubt on the election's integrity. The NY Times reported on increased errors and fraud due to mailed ballots back in 2012. I am not claiming the election was stolen or that Trump should have won. What I am saying, is that when you state "Trump's lies about a rigged election", you are labeling his comments as "lies" to dismiss any discussion of the very real problems with mail-in voting. And that denial is your attempt to "dismiss some uncomfortably partial truth", just what I stated in my first comment. https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/07/us/politics/as-more-vote-by-mail-faulty-ballots-could-impact-elections.html https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/07/us/politics/as-more-vote-...
    - croon 5y ago
      Mail-in-voting is linked to a (registered voter) person. If someone were to have voted for you (fraud), you would either not get to vote on election day, or cast a provisional ballot if it has not yet been counted, for example [0]. If this had happened at large, or really at all, there would be (thousands of) accounts of this, which there weren't. I'm labeling his lies about a rigged election as such because he specifically claims things that aren't true, demonstrably not true, or simply impossibly true. Discussing any problems with mail-in-voting is very much still possible, but entirely beside the point. [0] https://ballotpedia.org/What_happens_if_someone_votes_by_mail_and_then_tries_to_vote_in_person%3F_(2020) https://ballotpedia.org/What_happens_if_someone_votes_by_mai...
- canarypilot 5y ago
  Gosh, what an argument! We can make hay from that position! It is certain that some people on the placebo course of many randomised drug trials improve against the stated condition, so we ought not to completely disregard placebos as a viable treatment for many illnesses! Are you saying that not a single placebo has ever impacted the outcome of a medical trial any way, even if just from the psychological benefit of imagining you are being treated? I’d like to see your proof. Horoscopes, I’m certain some portion of them come true! Certainly kernels of truth exist in the origins of the majority of world religions, and even many super hero origin stories; we ought not to dismiss the possibility all of those are (simultaneously, regardless of contradictions) legitimate! I can’t fathom what logical high ground you thought you were taking with this comment, but you ought to spend some time reflecting on whether it lives up to any sensible values of critical thinking. I suggest holding to the ideal that the burden is on those making extraordinary claims to provide extraordinary evidence. Otherwise we’ll all be worshipping our spaghetti.
  - dude187 5y ago
    The overall discussion is regarding censorship though. Censoring everything you deem a "lie" without meeting some arbitrary barrier of truth leads to bad outcomes
    - canarypilot 5y ago
      People have become deeply confused between censoring and censuring. They feel bad when told their opinions are unwelcome and consider it an act of silencing, rather than an act of reprimanding. Calling something a lie and choosing not to engage with it is an act of censuring; and you can disagree with my barrier for when to censure you. Preventing you from speaking the lie is censoring.
- shkkmo 5y ago
  Please state exactly what any of the truths are. There has been plenty of debunking of the specific claims. If you have some specific claims that you don't think have been debunked, I'd like to hear them. There are indeed examples where calling something a lie (or conspiracy theory) is a bigger lie. If this is one of those, you should have no trouble finding specific supporting claims that aren't also lies and haven't been expressly debunked.

by croon 5y ago

listenallyall 5y ago

Please state exactly what the lies are. That the election was rigged? Are you claiming that not a single district in a single state was compromised in any way? I'd like to see your proof. My point is not that Trump is correct... but just like I said, there are likely some kernels of truth in the statement, while you labelling it a lie is a shortcut to dismissing his entire argument without showing any proof yourself.

croon 5y ago
You're asking me to prove a negative. If there were any grounds for the claim, it wouldn't be a lie, but there aren't. The courts have settled it, election officials of both parties have settled it, and frankly basic understanding of the election system has settled it. I'md dismissing his entire argument because he doesn't have one outside of delusions. So I'll say it again, if you give me any substantive grounds for the lie, I can explain how it's wrong.
- listenallyall 5y ago
  The massive expansion of vote-by-mail in the 2020 presidential election, especially in many states which had not previously planned to do so, is sufficient to cast some doubt on the election's integrity. The NY Times reported on increased errors and fraud due to mailed ballots back in 2012. I am not claiming the election was stolen or that Trump should have won. What I am saying, is that when you state "Trump's lies about a rigged election", you are labeling his comments as "lies" to dismiss any discussion of the very real problems with mail-in voting. And that denial is your attempt to "dismiss some uncomfortably partial truth", just what I stated in my first comment. https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/07/us/politics/as-more-vote-by-mail-faulty-ballots-could-impact-elections.html https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/07/us/politics/as-more-vote-...
  - croon 5y ago
    Mail-in-voting is linked to a (registered voter) person. If someone were to have voted for you (fraud), you would either not get to vote on election day, or cast a provisional ballot if it has not yet been counted, for example [0]. If this had happened at large, or really at all, there would be (thousands of) accounts of this, which there weren't. I'm labeling his lies about a rigged election as such because he specifically claims things that aren't true, demonstrably not true, or simply impossibly true. Discussing any problems with mail-in-voting is very much still possible, but entirely beside the point. [0] https://ballotpedia.org/What_happens_if_someone_votes_by_mail_and_then_tries_to_vote_in_person%3F_(2020) https://ballotpedia.org/What_happens_if_someone_votes_by_mai...
canarypilot 5y ago
Gosh, what an argument! We can make hay from that position! It is certain that some people on the placebo course of many randomised drug trials improve against the stated condition, so we ought not to completely disregard placebos as a viable treatment for many illnesses! Are you saying that not a single placebo has ever impacted the outcome of a medical trial any way, even if just from the psychological benefit of imagining you are being treated? I’d like to see your proof. Horoscopes, I’m certain some portion of them come true! Certainly kernels of truth exist in the origins of the majority of world religions, and even many super hero origin stories; we ought not to dismiss the possibility all of those are (simultaneously, regardless of contradictions) legitimate! I can’t fathom what logical high ground you thought you were taking with this comment, but you ought to spend some time reflecting on whether it lives up to any sensible values of critical thinking. I suggest holding to the ideal that the burden is on those making extraordinary claims to provide extraordinary evidence. Otherwise we’ll all be worshipping our spaghetti.
- dude187 5y ago
  The overall discussion is regarding censorship though. Censoring everything you deem a "lie" without meeting some arbitrary barrier of truth leads to bad outcomes
  - canarypilot 5y ago
    People have become deeply confused between censoring and censuring. They feel bad when told their opinions are unwelcome and consider it an act of silencing, rather than an act of reprimanding. Calling something a lie and choosing not to engage with it is an act of censuring; and you can disagree with my barrier for when to censure you. Preventing you from speaking the lie is censoring.
shkkmo 5y ago
Please state exactly what any of the truths are. There has been plenty of debunking of the specific claims. If you have some specific claims that you don't think have been debunked, I'd like to hear them. There are indeed examples where calling something a lie (or conspiracy theory) is a bigger lie. If this is one of those, you should have no trouble finding specific supporting claims that aren't also lies and haven't been expressly debunked.