3 ms·

I wouldn't be surprised if a similar portion didn't believe 2016 or 2024 results either. TBH looking from afar with US election system any election seems quest

by mantas 1y ago

I wouldn't be surprised if a similar portion didn't believe 2016 or 2024 results either. TBH looking from afar with US election system any election seems questionable. If my country had no mandatory voter ID, I wouldn't trust our elections either. That voters count jump in 2020 election that does not match election-over-election pattern is weird too.

phillipcarter 1y ago
Goodness gracious, you should just plug your questions into ChatGPT with search mode on and you'll already get most of your concerns addressed. The question is: do you want to believe conspiracy theories or not?
- mantas 1y ago
  Eh... ChatGPT is probably the worst of both worlds. Even if we skip hallucinations. First, it's not hard for fake content (e.g. russian propaganda) make into it. Second, ChatGPT censors wrongthink itself. E.g. at least older versions simply refused to tell jokes about women while happily telling jokes about men. I'm pretty sure that's not only one wrongthink that is „adjusted“.
lyu07282 1y ago
> If my country had no mandatory voter ID, I wouldn't trust our elections either. In terms of conspiracy thinking you have to always be very careful with such statements, ask yourself why liberals oppose voter id laws? Assume no ill intent for the sake of it. Do research for yourself into the subject. Try for example to answer these questions in your research: What is the evidence and magnitude of election fraud? Who benefits from voter id laws and why? It's one thing to be convinced of something that sounds like common sense, but you should at least try to understand the other side of the arguments. I like how this thread turned into such a perfect meta demonstration of the article. At the end of the day you can't force people to be curious, they won't research for themselves, they likely lack the media literacy to do so anyway. They are just never exposed to the counter arguments from someone they aren't already biased against. A chatbot that can be perceived as impartial arbiters of truth in all other aspects of their lives, could indeed be helpful to combat all the nonsense people believe to be true. My calculator was always right, let's ask it about this new 2+2=5 conspiracy.
- mantas 1y ago
  > In terms of conspiracy thinking you have to always be very careful with such statements, ask yourself why liberals oppose voter id laws? Assume no ill intent for the sake of it. Do research for yourself into the subject. Try for example to answer these questions in your research: What is the evidence and magnitude of election fraud? Who benefits from voter id laws and why? Oh, I'm well aware about both sides opposing arguments. But IMO both of them are whacky. Even in poor countries like mine it was never a problem to get a damn ID. ID card is super cheap and opening the office issuing it on saturdays is not rocket science. If people in US put huuuuge money into politicians campaigns and go extra mile for gerry mandaring... And voter ID requirement could be used to prevent some people from voting... Abusing no-voter-id seems like no brainer to me. > It's one thing to be convinced of something that sounds like common sense, but you should at least try to understand the other side of the arguments. I've spent plenty of time on this topic. And yet I can't find any convincing argument. > They are just never exposed to the counter arguments from someone they aren't already biased against. I think you're way underestimating people who don't agree with you.
  - lyu07282 1y ago
    > I think you're way underestimating people who don't agree with you. No I have enough experience to know that I usually over estimating people, everyone is the product of their environment and material conditions, saying that I don't have much expectation of people doesn't mean I don't empathize with them. Your thinking is scattered, disorganized, surface level and not well thought-through. You are missing crucial information and you are looking for a simple argument to a complex problem you erroneously believe to be simple and common sense. > I've spent plenty of time on this topic. And yet you don't understand why democrats oppose voter ID laws and neither do you understand why republicans support it. You don't know how many people don't have an ID and why. You don't understand how election fraud happens and how much of a problem it is. You don't know how elections work in the US and how abusing no-voter-id would look like. > And yet I can't find any convincing argument. Because you first have to understand what the argument is about.
    - 1y ago

by mantas 1y ago

phillipcarter 1y ago

Goodness gracious, you should just plug your questions into ChatGPT with search mode on and you'll already get most of your concerns addressed. The question is: do you want to believe conspiracy theories or not?

mantas 1y ago
Eh... ChatGPT is probably the worst of both worlds. Even if we skip hallucinations. First, it's not hard for fake content (e.g. russian propaganda) make into it. Second, ChatGPT censors wrongthink itself. E.g. at least older versions simply refused to tell jokes about women while happily telling jokes about men. I'm pretty sure that's not only one wrongthink that is „adjusted“.

lyu07282 1y ago

> If my country had no mandatory voter ID, I wouldn't trust our elections either. In terms of conspiracy thinking you have to always be very careful with such statements, ask yourself why liberals oppose voter id laws? Assume no ill intent for the sake of it. Do research for yourself into the subject. Try for example to answer these questions in your research: What is the evidence and magnitude of election fraud? Who benefits from voter id laws and why? It's one thing to be convinced of something that sounds like common sense, but you should at least try to understand the other side of the arguments. I like how this thread turned into such a perfect meta demonstration of the article. At the end of the day you can't force people to be curious, they won't research for themselves, they likely lack the media literacy to do so anyway. They are just never exposed to the counter arguments from someone they aren't already biased against. A chatbot that can be perceived as impartial arbiters of truth in all other aspects of their lives, could indeed be helpful to combat all the nonsense people believe to be true. My calculator was always right, let's ask it about this new 2+2=5 conspiracy.

mantas 1y ago
> In terms of conspiracy thinking you have to always be very careful with such statements, ask yourself why liberals oppose voter id laws? Assume no ill intent for the sake of it. Do research for yourself into the subject. Try for example to answer these questions in your research: What is the evidence and magnitude of election fraud? Who benefits from voter id laws and why? Oh, I'm well aware about both sides opposing arguments. But IMO both of them are whacky. Even in poor countries like mine it was never a problem to get a damn ID. ID card is super cheap and opening the office issuing it on saturdays is not rocket science. If people in US put huuuuge money into politicians campaigns and go extra mile for gerry mandaring... And voter ID requirement could be used to prevent some people from voting... Abusing no-voter-id seems like no brainer to me. > It's one thing to be convinced of something that sounds like common sense, but you should at least try to understand the other side of the arguments. I've spent plenty of time on this topic. And yet I can't find any convincing argument. > They are just never exposed to the counter arguments from someone they aren't already biased against. I think you're way underestimating people who don't agree with you.
- lyu07282 1y ago
  > I think you're way underestimating people who don't agree with you. No I have enough experience to know that I usually over estimating people, everyone is the product of their environment and material conditions, saying that I don't have much expectation of people doesn't mean I don't empathize with them. Your thinking is scattered, disorganized, surface level and not well thought-through. You are missing crucial information and you are looking for a simple argument to a complex problem you erroneously believe to be simple and common sense. > I've spent plenty of time on this topic. And yet you don't understand why democrats oppose voter ID laws and neither do you understand why republicans support it. You don't know how many people don't have an ID and why. You don't understand how election fraud happens and how much of a problem it is. You don't know how elections work in the US and how abusing no-voter-id would look like. > And yet I can't find any convincing argument. Because you first have to understand what the argument is about.
  - 1y ago