4 ms·

I don't think it's moving the goalposts to look at the direct leadership of the political parties and their actions. Hillary and Trump aren't just random indivi

I don't think it's moving the goalposts to look at the direct leadership of the political parties and their actions. Hillary and Trump aren't just random individuals. > But Hillary's election denial is better than Trump's! But Hillary isn't engaging in election denial, or really any denial. It's a verified fact that Russia leaked hacked material in order to hurt Hillary's campaign and portions of the Trump campaign colluded with that Russian effort. You can call it bad behavior to bring up old complaints (due to effects on partisanship, etc), but Hillary isn't engaging in any denial. IMHO the real people who are in denial about 2016 are the ones who still don't think Russia worked to sink Hillary with hacked material even after the criminal convictions and bipartisan Senate report.

throwaway894345 4y ago
> I don't think it's moving the goalposts to look at the direct leadership of the political parties and their actions. Hillary and Trump aren't just random individuals. They aren't random individuals, but just because Hillary conceded the election on one occasion doesn't refute the many documented instances in which she and others in her party (at all levels of leadership) alleged or heavily implied the election was stolen. > But Hillary isn't engaging in election denial, or really any denial. It's a verified fact that Russia leaked hacked material in order to hurt Hillary's campaign and portions of the Trump campaign colluded with that Russian effort. It absolutely is election denial to allege or imply that the election was stolen, as Hillary has done many times over the intervening years, even if you believe there is good reason to deny the election results. Specifically, the original claim was that one party accepts election results and the other party does not--if you agree that some significant number of Democrats believed in Russian collusion even if there was collusion and that some significant number of Republicans believe the 2020 election was stolen even if it was stolen then you necessarily agree that the original claim (that one party accepts election results and the other does not) is false. You perhaps agree that the Democrats' election denial is better than the Republicans', but there is no room for disagreement that neither party accepts election results.
- ModernMech 4y ago
  I think there's a big difference between grumbling about the results of an election being unfair due to your opponent engaging with a foreign government that hacked your campaign, and unprecedented moves from the FBI days before the election; and working earnestly to actually overturn the results of an election by knowingly lying about the existence of fraud, using multiple levers of government including DOJ and state legislatures to advance that lie, and to top it all off directing an armed mob to literally violently assault a joint session of Congress. If you call both of these things "election denial" that's the false equivalence others were referencing elsewhere in the conversation.
  - throwaway894345 4y ago
    They are both election denial, and it’s not a false equivalence because recognizing that both are under the rubric of “election denial” doesn’t imply an equivalence.
    - ModernMech 4y ago
      When you compare two things that are significantly different in scale and scope without recognizing or addressing those important differences, yet proceed to call them the same without any qualification regardless, that’s exactly a false equivalence. Let me be clear about what the difference is: the way that Democrats and Clinton behaved in 2016 was legal and constitutionally within their rights. The way Republicans and Trump behaved in 2020 was not only illegal, it was seditious bordering on treasonous. Putting those two reactions into the same bucket in any capacity is an act of historical whitewashing and indeed, false equivalence.
      - throwaway894345 4y ago
        I wasn’t the one who made the original comparison bruv, and I have only been explicit about saying I thought Trump’s behavior was worse. I very clearly made no equivalences whatsoever.

throwaway894345 4y ago

> I don't think it's moving the goalposts to look at the direct leadership of the political parties and their actions. Hillary and Trump aren't just random individuals. They aren't random individuals, but just because Hillary conceded the election on one occasion doesn't refute the many documented instances in which she and others in her party (at all levels of leadership) alleged or heavily implied the election was stolen. > But Hillary isn't engaging in election denial, or really any denial. It's a verified fact that Russia leaked hacked material in order to hurt Hillary's campaign and portions of the Trump campaign colluded with that Russian effort. It absolutely is election denial to allege or imply that the election was stolen, as Hillary has done many times over the intervening years, even if you believe there is good reason to deny the election results. Specifically, the original claim was that one party accepts election results and the other party does not--if you agree that some significant number of Democrats believed in Russian collusion even if there was collusion and that some significant number of Republicans believe the 2020 election was stolen even if it was stolen then you necessarily agree that the original claim (that one party accepts election results and the other does not) is false. You perhaps agree that the Democrats' election denial is better than the Republicans', but there is no room for disagreement that neither party accepts election results.

ModernMech 4y ago
I think there's a big difference between grumbling about the results of an election being unfair due to your opponent engaging with a foreign government that hacked your campaign, and unprecedented moves from the FBI days before the election; and working earnestly to actually overturn the results of an election by knowingly lying about the existence of fraud, using multiple levers of government including DOJ and state legislatures to advance that lie, and to top it all off directing an armed mob to literally violently assault a joint session of Congress. If you call both of these things "election denial" that's the false equivalence others were referencing elsewhere in the conversation.
- throwaway894345 4y ago
  They are both election denial, and it’s not a false equivalence because recognizing that both are under the rubric of “election denial” doesn’t imply an equivalence.
  - ModernMech 4y ago
    When you compare two things that are significantly different in scale and scope without recognizing or addressing those important differences, yet proceed to call them the same without any qualification regardless, that’s exactly a false equivalence. Let me be clear about what the difference is: the way that Democrats and Clinton behaved in 2016 was legal and constitutionally within their rights. The way Republicans and Trump behaved in 2020 was not only illegal, it was seditious bordering on treasonous. Putting those two reactions into the same bucket in any capacity is an act of historical whitewashing and indeed, false equivalence.
    - throwaway894345 4y ago
      I wasn’t the one who made the original comparison bruv, and I have only been explicit about saying I thought Trump’s behavior was worse. I very clearly made no equivalences whatsoever.