4 ms·

Election denialism isn't new here, it's a healthy tenet of a functioning democracy. The Republicans did it in '20, the democrats did it in' 16, the democrats di

by brink 3y ago

Election denialism isn't new here, it's a healthy tenet of a functioning democracy. The Republicans did it in '20, the democrats did it in' 16, the democrats did it in '00. The people need the freedom to question an election's legitimacy in order to trust the results. Banning dissent will demolish trust in fair elections, not increase it.

SideQuark 3y ago
[flagged]
- clipsy 3y ago
  Additionally, the 2000 and 2016 elections were met with legal challenges, not a violent mob trying to overthrow the government.
  - HKH2 3y ago
    Things are different when you have the mainstream media on your side. Case in point is the fact that you believe people were trying to overthrow the government without weapons.
    - SideQuark 3y ago
      Anyone using the term "mainstream media" as if there is some global unified cabal telling people lies can be discounted out of hand. "Mainstream media" constitutes many places that do accurate reporting. Very few if any sources not in the mainstream come anywhere close to being accurate - nearly all of them exist to get clicks selling conspiracies to disgruntled people. The fact is nearly all media had the same conclusion as it happened - left, right, unbiased, foreign, fact based - the mob was trying to stop the peaceful transfer of power so Trump could retain power. And "without weapons" is an outright lie. Go watch the videos. Go read the court transcripts. Go check the actual evidence instead of spouting nonsense and irrelevant talking points. It was only later the right ring media (also known as liars - see the numerous lawsuits they lost and the evidence pulled from them - especially Fox News, and soon OANN and others will face the same legal standards and will fold) started to change their tune. And they do it because it works on enough people not able to understand or accept reality - as your comment illustrates. People that have a hard time accepting reality or evidence use the term "mainstream media" derisively in order to preserve a world view formed by eating conspiracies and nonsense. The actors selling lies to people that flit from conspiracy to conspiracy love the term "mainstream media" because it helps them grift money from people.
      - HKH2 3y ago
        What term do you want me to use instead of 'mainstream media'? Fine, makeshift weapons that you wouldn't use to overthrow a country. No weapons that Antifa wouldn't have anyway, and they were less coordinated than an Antifa riot (Oh whoops Antifa is not a thing according to your trustworthy sources). When all media outles actually face the consequences of their lies (not just right wing ones), then maybe you'll have a leg to stand on. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but anyone still stumping for the mainstream media is utterly naive, and yes Fox and OANN are also mainstream.
        SideQuark 3y ago
        > anyone still stumping for the mainstream media is utterly naive Anyone silly enough to lump all such things together given the vast array of different outlets is utterly simplistic. The name is simply used to discount reality conspiracy people don't like. I'm not stumping for anything other than things which have the best track record of reporting accurately, as evidenced by outcomes. A simple subset of this can be checked by polls before an event measured against outcomes. You can get historical datasets of polls from pretty much all outlets, then compare against actual outcomes. For example, 538 posts a crapton of historical data from lots of outlets along many axes at https://data.fivethirtyeight.com/ https://data.fivethirtyeight.com/ Guess what - mainstream media far outclasses other outlets. This is science, not opinion. Now do the same for other datasets, which you can also do - from finance, to political events, to science claims, to pretty much anything that has basis in reality. There - I gave you an empirical method to measure accuracy of a news source. Please show me something not mainstream that outscores the median of mainstream places on one of these empirical tests. I have analyzed data on many of these things, which is how I know the answer you're going to find. Good luck. Of course, people enamored with silly labels rarely actually check evidence in a principled manner, which is how they get to using silly labels.
        HKH2 3y ago
        > Of course, people enamored with silly labels rarely actually check evidence in a principled manner, which is how they get to using silly labels. > Guess what - mainstream media... I've already asked you for another term. You seem comfortable using silly labels yourself. > A simple subset of this can be checked by polls before an event measured against outcomes. Oh you mean like in November 2016?
galacticstone 3y ago
Wow, the bootlicking in this thread is gross. And getting downvoted to death for speaking truth is an indictment of HN's culture. Enjoy your bucketloads of logical fallacies, I am outta here. This place is gross. I need a shower.

by brink 3y ago

SideQuark 3y ago

[flagged]

clipsy 3y ago
Additionally, the 2000 and 2016 elections were met with legal challenges, not a violent mob trying to overthrow the government.
- HKH2 3y ago
  Things are different when you have the mainstream media on your side. Case in point is the fact that you believe people were trying to overthrow the government without weapons.
  - SideQuark 3y ago
    Anyone using the term "mainstream media" as if there is some global unified cabal telling people lies can be discounted out of hand. "Mainstream media" constitutes many places that do accurate reporting. Very few if any sources not in the mainstream come anywhere close to being accurate - nearly all of them exist to get clicks selling conspiracies to disgruntled people. The fact is nearly all media had the same conclusion as it happened - left, right, unbiased, foreign, fact based - the mob was trying to stop the peaceful transfer of power so Trump could retain power. And "without weapons" is an outright lie. Go watch the videos. Go read the court transcripts. Go check the actual evidence instead of spouting nonsense and irrelevant talking points. It was only later the right ring media (also known as liars - see the numerous lawsuits they lost and the evidence pulled from them - especially Fox News, and soon OANN and others will face the same legal standards and will fold) started to change their tune. And they do it because it works on enough people not able to understand or accept reality - as your comment illustrates. People that have a hard time accepting reality or evidence use the term "mainstream media" derisively in order to preserve a world view formed by eating conspiracies and nonsense. The actors selling lies to people that flit from conspiracy to conspiracy love the term "mainstream media" because it helps them grift money from people.
    - HKH2 3y ago
      What term do you want me to use instead of 'mainstream media'? Fine, makeshift weapons that you wouldn't use to overthrow a country. No weapons that Antifa wouldn't have anyway, and they were less coordinated than an Antifa riot (Oh whoops Antifa is not a thing according to your trustworthy sources). When all media outles actually face the consequences of their lies (not just right wing ones), then maybe you'll have a leg to stand on. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but anyone still stumping for the mainstream media is utterly naive, and yes Fox and OANN are also mainstream.
      - SideQuark 3y ago
        > anyone still stumping for the mainstream media is utterly naive Anyone silly enough to lump all such things together given the vast array of different outlets is utterly simplistic. The name is simply used to discount reality conspiracy people don't like. I'm not stumping for anything other than things which have the best track record of reporting accurately, as evidenced by outcomes. A simple subset of this can be checked by polls before an event measured against outcomes. You can get historical datasets of polls from pretty much all outlets, then compare against actual outcomes. For example, 538 posts a crapton of historical data from lots of outlets along many axes at https://data.fivethirtyeight.com/ https://data.fivethirtyeight.com/ Guess what - mainstream media far outclasses other outlets. This is science, not opinion. Now do the same for other datasets, which you can also do - from finance, to political events, to science claims, to pretty much anything that has basis in reality. There - I gave you an empirical method to measure accuracy of a news source. Please show me something not mainstream that outscores the median of mainstream places on one of these empirical tests. I have analyzed data on many of these things, which is how I know the answer you're going to find. Good luck. Of course, people enamored with silly labels rarely actually check evidence in a principled manner, which is how they get to using silly labels.
        HKH2 3y ago
        > Of course, people enamored with silly labels rarely actually check evidence in a principled manner, which is how they get to using silly labels. > Guess what - mainstream media... I've already asked you for another term. You seem comfortable using silly labels yourself. > A simple subset of this can be checked by polls before an event measured against outcomes. Oh you mean like in November 2016?

galacticstone 3y ago

Wow, the bootlicking in this thread is gross. And getting downvoted to death for speaking truth is an indictment of HN's culture. Enjoy your bucketloads of logical fallacies, I am outta here. This place is gross. I need a shower.