Possible Reasons Why YouTube Has Given Up Trying To Police 2020 Election Misinfo
from the maybe-not-the-end-of-the-world dept
Judging by the number of very angry press releases that landed in my inbox this past Friday, you’d think that YouTube had decided to personally burn down democracy. You see, that day the company announced an update to its approach to moderating election misinformation, effectively saying that it would no longer try to police most such misinformation regarding the legitimacy of the 2020 election:
We first instituted a provision of our elections misinformation policy focused on the integrity of past US Presidential elections in December 2020, once the states’ safe harbor date for certification had passed. Two years, tens of thousands of video removals, and one election cycle later, we recognized it was time to reevaluate the effects of this policy in today’s changed landscape. In the current environment, we find that while removing this content does curb some misinformation, it could also have the unintended effect of curtailing political speech without meaningfully reducing the risk of violence or other real-world harm. With that in mind, and with 2024 campaigns well underway, we will stop removing content that advances false claims that widespread fraud, errors, or glitches occurred in the 2020 and other past US Presidential elections. This goes into effect today, Friday, June 2. As with any update to our policies, we carefully deliberated this change.
The company insists that its overall election misinfo policies remain in place, and the direct forms of dealing with misinformation like doing things such as trying to trick people into not voting remain in place:
All of our election misinformation policies remain in place, including those that disallow content aiming to mislead voters about the time, place, means, or eligibility requirements for voting; false claims that could materially discourage voting, including those disputing the validity of voting by mail; and content that encourages others to interfere with democratic processes.
The company seems to be trying to walk a fine line here, which is unclear if it will work. But in talking this over with a few people, I came up with a few reasons why YouTube may have gone down this path, and it seemed to be worth discussing those possibilities:
- Realizing the moderation had gone too far. Basically, a version of what the company was saying publicly. They realized that in trying to enforce a ban against 2020 election misinfo was, in fact, catching too much legitimate debate. While many are dismissing this, it seems like a very real possibility. Remember, content moderation at scale is impossible to do well, and it frequently involves mistakes. And it seems likely that the mistakes are even more likely to occur with video, in which more legitimate political discourse is mistaken for disinformation and removed. This could include things like legitimate discussions on the problems of electronic voting machines, or questions about building up more resilient election systems which could be accidentally flagged as disinfo.
- Realizing that removing false claims wasn’t making a difference. This is something of a corollary to the first item, and is hinted at in the statement above. Unfortunately, this remains a very under-studied area of content moderation (there are some studies, but much more research is needed): how effective are bans and removals on stopping the spread of malicious disinformation. As we’ve discussed in a somewhat different context, it’s really unclear that online disinformation is actually as powerful as some make it out to be. And if removing that information is not having much of an impact, then it may not be worth the overall effort.
- The world has moved on. To me, this seems like the most likely actual reason. Most folks in the US have basically decided to believe what they believe. That could be that (as all of the actual evidence shows) that the 2020 election was perfectly fair and Joe Biden was the rightful winner or (as no actual evidence supports), the whole thing was “rigged” and Trump should have won. No one’s changing their mind at this point, and no YouTube video is going to convince people one way or the other. And, at this point, this particular issue is so far in the rearview mirror that the cost of continuing to monitor for this bit of misinfo just isn’t worth it for the lack of any benefit or movement in people’s beliefs.
- YouTube is worried about a Republican government in 2025. This is the cynical take. Since 2020 election denialism is now a key plank of the GOP platform, the company may be deciding to “play nice” with the disinformation peddling part of the GOP (which has moved from the fringe to the mainstream) and has decided that this is a more defensible position for inevitable hearings/bad legislation/etc.
In the end, it’s likely to be some combination of all four of those, and even the people within YouTube may not agree on which one is the “real” reason for doing this.
But it does strike me that the out-and-out freakout among some, claiming that this proves the world is ending may not be accurate. I’m all for companies deciding they don’t want to host certain content because they don’t want to be associated with it, but we’re still learning whether or not bans are the most effective tool in dealing with blatant misinformation and disinformation, and it’s quite possible that leaving certain claims alone is actually a reasonable policy in some case.
It would be nice if YouTube actually shared some of the underlying data on this, rather than just asking people to trust them, but I guess that’s really too much to ask these days.
Filed Under: 2020 election, content moderation, election denialism, election misinformation, masnick's impossibility theorem, misinformation
Companies: youtube
Comments on “Possible Reasons Why YouTube Has Given Up Trying To Police 2020 Election Misinfo”
The moderation at scale thing:
Yeah, maybe for this one item, due to the other possibilities listed having an effect, they realized they can be pretty bad at the disinformation moderation game. Now, i certainly cannot tell what gets removed, but their track record for the context boxes is outright hilarious. Sometimes completely wrong, but mostly context appears on videos discussing the context, not promoting the thing the context is about. The videos actually promoting any of the YouTube context targets i have seen, on the other hand… nope, not a one with teh contextx.
Or who knows maybe some LLM suggested it.
A simple disclaimer that the info is widely discredited or not believed by most would suffice.
Re:
How about:
“Note: Republicans have admitted in dozens of court cases they’re lying about the election.”
Re:
the deep problem with your Disclaimer is that YouTube moderators have NO objective mechanism for determining
“widely discredited or not believed by most”
Widely and Most are vague weasel-words.
One cannot measure what a large population actually thinks.
All current public-opinion polls are a sad joke, statistically.
YouTube Moderators could only make crude estimates of the views of some more visible population segments — and moderators would be unable to eliminate their own personal biases.
Re: Re:
“One cannot measure what a large population actually thinks”
The main issue at hand is the subject of the 2020 election. Trump lost, through both popular vote and the electoral college. That was the measurement of what a large population thinks. Despite dozens of attempts, his supporters failed to present a shred of evidence of any fraud or unfair election practices. Yet, lies about that election led directly to a violent attempt to overthrow the election.
There might certainly be issues where there’s some grey areas, doubt or actual controversy, but this is not one of them. YouTube are choosing to allow factually false propaganda regarding an issue that is not in question.
Re: Re: Re: "a shred of evidence"
I wonder what happened to the numerous affidavits that the lawyer guy (forget his name) waved to the camera in front of the Four Seasons Landscaping garage? They were never presented to a court of law, as far as I have heard.
Perhaps they have become literal shreds of evidence (of something).
I think he claimed they had hundreds of affidavits. I remember someone on the internet inflating it to a hundred thousand, or hundreds of thousands. But did anyone ever see the contents of even one? Where are they now?
Re: Re: Re:2
‘We’ve got lots of theories, we just don’t have the evidence’
aka: bullshit
Re: Re: Re:2
Judges Are Not Impressed by Rudy Giuliani’s Evidence of ‘Widespread Nationwide Voter Fraud’
Although the president’s lawyer says the anti-Trump conspiracy is “easily provable,” the affidavits he cites fall notably short.
Basically, they worked as well as Ghouliani’s Grecian 2000 did at convincing people he still doesn’t have any grey hair.
Re: Re: Re:2
They claimed they were going to release the kraken, but all they had was Mike Lindell, the crackhead.
Re: Re: Re:3
Also, the kraken thing is hilarious, since in the actual myth Perseus easily defeated after obtaining the right “weapon” to use. Not only do these morons get their ideas from movies (I somehow suspect they’re not reading classical Greek mythology), they don’t appear to watch till the end.
Re: Re: Re:4 Content warning: Hockey humor
How else can the Kraken be defeated? Shooting pucks past Seattle’s goalie.
“The world has moved on. To me, this seems like the most likely actual reason. Most folks in the US have basically decided to believe what they believe.”
While true, that’s still not an excuse. The idea that Trump won the previous election is still demonstrably false, and the only logical reason for removing the restrictions is to profit from it. I can’t think of any other reason why they’d say “we will accept outright lies”.
It might not be “world ending” as some nutters continue to be radicalised by false claims, but it only takes one of them to be convinced by their feed that they have to take some action. That might not happen, but this is a specific lie that’s already known to have had real world consequences.
The facts are – Biden won the election by a significant number of popular votes, he won the electoral college, despite dozens of attempts no Trump supporter has presented a shred of credible evidence in court that refutes the process and millions of dollars have been spent fighting false claims. Introducing disinformation campaigns on this specific subject in the run up to the next election seems reckless at best.
Folks have decided what they believe… the problem is the ones who believe in nonsense and are easily angered.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
“Folks have decided what they believe…”
Yes, and you too are included in such strident believers.
You “believe” the official 2020 Election results, but have no method whatsoever to personally verify your “Belief”.
Others disagree with your belief, but face same verification issue.
Real problem is that our PRESIDENTIAL election is actually an extremely complex ‘process’ with a significant margin of error built in.
It ain’t nuthin’ like countn’ jelly beans in a jar.
Nobody in the Galaxy knows what the true 2020 vote was — because there is NO objective mechanism anywhere to verify it.
All modern Presidential elections suffer this fatal flaw, but naive belief systems always prevail.
Re: Re: Idiotic
This is possibly the most idiotic take on this idiotic topic.
There are a host of things I can’t “personally verify,” including that Trump might have been replaced by aliens. Hell, the vast majority of things reported even in the local newspaper are things that I can’t “personally verify.”
We believe things based on basic principles of information literacy and our educated viewpoint that’s based on our understanding of reality. You’re arguing that literally nothing can be believed unless you can objectively prove it yourself.
It’s a moron’s way of thinking. Hell, you probably think the laptop I’m writing this on is real, and that I’m not broadcasting this message to your own computer through telepathy. Prove it.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re: At least as idiotic
It is at least as idiotic to think that the solution to the verification problem is to defer to news agencies and government officials and to advocate for the censorship of claims that do not have their imprimatur.
Censorship is an evil unto itself, even it magically manages to reduce disinformation. Having to deal with disinformation is immeasurably better and easier than having to deal with censorship.
It is not even a contest. It really difficult to figure out how people managed to convince themselves that “disinformation” is an acceptable argument in favour of censorship. It’s not. Censorship is a positive harm regardless of any other consideration.
Re: Re: Re:2
“even it magically manages to reduce disinformation”
Telling a liar to stfu is not censorship.
Telling people to produce evidence or stfu is not censorship.
Stopping fraud (aka:misinformation) is not censorship.
Enforcing the law is not … errr wait a sec, that depends I guess. They say they are enforcing the law but, ummmm.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3 Says who
That’s always the rub.
Without robust debate, all we have is weak willed individuals who believe things like the Steele Dossier and who are too afraid to update their opinions or, more importantly, their priors, to tell us what a lie is.
I am more afraid of having people who believe censorship is okay tell me what they think is or is not a lie than I am afraid of being a lied to.
At least a lie is easy to detect in a healthy information ecosystem. Every healthy ecosystem has predators and parasites, but the worst kind is those who want to limit MY access to information on the grounds of “protecting” me from misinformation and disinformation.
You are not suitably qualified to make that judgement and your opinions on the matter is worthless to me if you formed on the basis of selective (censored) information.
Re: Re: Re:4
Interesting …
Question: (morbid curiosity actually)
Is the Earth flat?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:5 Really? Try to treat the conversation seriously if you want to be taken seriously.
You know what’s funny about that?
The same sorts people who now want to claim the right to censor others are the kind who spread the myth that it was ever widely historically believed that the Earth was flat in the first place. So they are as responsible for that particular piece of “disnfo” as anyone who actually believes the Earth is flat.
That said, it is technically incorrect to neglect reference frames from any discussion. To forget that is just one more source of misinformation spread by people who really should know better.
If you are looking at any problem from an immutable reference frame you are doing yourself and the problem a disservice.
Re: Re: Re:6
Let me guess, you are a nihilist – right?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:7 No
Fallibilist.
I consider myself to be in far better company there than what appears to be the average “big-brain” take of a Techdirt commenter.
I am starting to remember why I stopped frequenting this site. Sad, really.
Re: Re: Re:8
Fallibilist, how is anything accomplished with such a disorder?
We used to call something similar “Analysis Paralysis”.
You spin the gears at high rpm but go nowhere.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:9 Good question
No, it’s not analysis paralysis.
There is a moment of crisis once you understand the idea, but you have to push through that.
Hence the old joke:
“First you get your Bachelor’s degree, and you think you know everything.”
“Then, you get your Master’s, and you realize you don’t know anything.”
“Then you get your Doctorate, and you find out that nobody knows anything.”
That’s why censorship is so offensive, because once you understand epistemology, you understand that any decision maker who self-censors or allows themselves to be censorship is a grade-A fool. More information is always better, even if it’s false.
I can demonstrate it mathematically, but not here, I’m afraid. Truth is robust because reality resists (objects to) manipulation. The only way to approach “objectivity” is to resist censorship.
It’s related to Simpson’s paradox, if that helps.
Re: Re: Re:8
Remember harder. Your absence is cordially invited.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:9 Case in point
Nobody forced you to engage.
Re: Re: Re:10
— Someone who must compulsively Reply. To. Every. Damn. Post.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:11 You're the one complaining
I’m not the one complaining.
Re: Re: Re:12 Take it away, Nicki Minaj!
Pimpin’ ain’t slick and they ain’t sayin’ nothing
A hundred of ya suckers can’t tell me nothing
I Beeze in the trap, bee-Beeze in the trap
I Beeze in the trap, bee-Beeze in the trap
— Nicki Minaj and 2 Chainz (edited version)
Re: Re: Re:5
It’s funny … no, more sad and disturbing … that Beeze feels the need to avalanche us with words for a simple yes/no question.
And I never did get a response to how he would rank a list of evil things.
Re: Re: Re:6
ChatGPT on meth
Re: Re: Re:4
Luckily for us, that isn’t happening anywhere outside of your demented hallucinations.
Re: Re: Re:2
Wronger than wrong.
Censorship is wrong. Blind trust in institutions to be arbiters of truth is wrong.
Believing that censorship and blind trust is equally wrong, or believing that censorship and blind trust are the only two possibilities, is a magnitude of wrong worse than the wrongs of censorship and blind trust individually.
Straw man.
We’ve conducted and counted elections in much the same way before Donald Trump’s presidency. The only thing that changed was Donald Trump — basically 75 million Americans take their behavioral cues from him.
Voters cast a ballot. The ballots are then taken to election officials and tallied. This is not and has never been a secretive process. Citizens can literally apply to be an election vote-counter. Also, political parties and candidate representatives are entitled to watch the vote counting process. There’s an official entrusted by law, under titles like registrar, clerk or secretary of state, who oversees the process and has to attest to the accuracy of the results.
This is actually a solemn responsibility. If election records are suspect, this means by extension that the election’s officials scope of work can be called into question — particularly for secretaries of state. Every official document — birth and death certificates, marriage and divorce certificates, property records, etc. — can be called into question or voided outright. The work would have to be done over or courts would have to spend years going back to square one and re-establishing settled facts.
There are so many controls in place to block or frustrate electoral dishonesty.
And remember, fraud is an allegation that must be proven true and burden of proof lay with the accuser.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3 Censorship actively blinds you
If you rely on and trust censored information you have blinded yourself to the full scope of material relevant to decision making.
It is blind trust by definition.
No different from the King who kills all advisors who don’t tell him what he’d like to hear.
How would you know if nothing okayed by those sorts of people is to be trusted?
Why would you ever trust anyone who tells you not to fully inform yourself to the best of your ability even when the conclusion might not be in their ultimate favor?
Only cults do that to followers. It’s a defining characteristic.
That’s seems to be the sort of thing that a person who believes in censorship would believe, but even if I were to grant that, why are you assuming that elections have always been secure and proper?
Democrats had been riding right up front of the “stolen elections” bandwagon since 19-whenever. It only changed when it it politically useful to claim otherwise.
It doesn’t matter how many controls you have in place when the system only requires one point of opacity to fail.
The is really basic stuff, it’s not complicated to figure out. It’s why things like chain of custody exist. You can’t honesty try to pretend that the system as the Americans have it is in any way robust. It is the kind of system North Korea would be embarrassed to have.
Having honest elections is not rocket science. The US doesn’t have them. Not now, and not for many years before Donald Trump ever seriously thought of running.
Re: Re: Re:4
What a hopscotch of self-contradiction wrapped in self-important puffery.
Trump’s own legal advocates tried 62 times to make their case, and only won a single case — in Pennsylvania regarding the deadline to produce voter IDs. The number of ballots in question was so small as to not affect the 81,000+ vote margin Biden had over Trump.
The Supreme Court wouldn’t touch his case. His attorney general dismissed the possibility of widespread fraud. His insurrectionists failed to stop the pro forma process of certifying the election.
Evidence of vote fraud or GTFO.
Fallacy of gray. It’s a pseudoskeptical posture that contains within it an argument: Since nothing is certain, then any and all possibilities are equally uncertain.
Ad hominem.
And yes, there’s a difference. Everyone will walk away from this dialogue alive. The King — you know, in your own words — literally killed his subjects.
Whataboutism. You’re mistaken in the belief that attempting to score a point brings truth closer to your argument.
Are you speaking with the authority of an election official who has had to audit and test for fraud? Or an attorney that has successfully gotten a vote thrown out using the “one point of opacity” doctrine?
Evidently not.
Again, you would have to show with evidence of the opacity, and the probably cause that this opacity caused a fraudulent outcome.
This is a conspiracy that would have to involve about 155 million people. That is roughly the number of ballots cast in the 2020 election. About 84 million people did not vote for Donald Trump, 10 million more than the roughly 74 million people who did. And why were Republicans able to secure victory in other races using the same “fraudulent” voting mechanisms?
Again, evidence of fraud or GTFO.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:5 Is common sense too much to ask for
Well, I’m really glad you finished reading “How to win every argument”, but making incorrect assessments of informal fallacies is not actually an argument.
Let me try it this way for you:
If you go watch a magic show and you can’t see how the trick is done, do you assume the nice lady was actually sawn in half?
Don’t be silly.
If a Nigerian Prince offers you a $1m do you believe that to be the case until you can prove it’s not?
If you do I have a bridge to sell you.
If an election officer puts up posterboards to stop observers from counting, do you assume that is to protect the integrity of the process?
Well, if you do, I have a great investment opportunity to tell you about were you get a guaranteed 40%p/a return on your investment. No risk!
Re: Re: Re:6
Do you assume that if you personally can’t verify it, then it must not have happened?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:7 Basic agency theory
I don’t assume that magicians really pull rabbits out of hats.
I don’t assume that purveyors of Ponzi pyramids are good investment advisors.
I don’t assume elections are free and fair.
It’s a matter of assigning the correct priors, and it’s never a trivial exercise.
https://towardsdatascience.com/the-truth-about-bayesian-priors-and-overfitting-84e24d3a1153
Re: Re: Re:8
Yeah, it seems like you’re a contrarian for the sake of being a contrarian. You contribute nothing of substance, apart from sowing doubt to simpletons who haven’t figured out that you can’t prove a negative.
Quick question, while we’re talking about things you don’t assume – do you assume people who say they see god actually see god? Or is that one of those funny exceptions that doesn’t fit into this bullshit calculus of yours?
Because I don’t assume they do. I assume they’re schizophrenic and hallucinating, like any other nut.
And how should delusional thinking taint what they present to the public?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:9 Guilty as charged
If not buying into Ponzi schemes means I’m not a contrarian, then I must be a contrarian.
If no believing that the coin was in my ear all along, I must be a contrarian.
If not believing someone’s pet theory just because they proffered evidence for it, then I must be contrarian (c.f. the definition of pseudoscience).
If not believing that corruption is the norm in politics, then I must be a contrarian.
Re: Re: Re:10
The god question bother you?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:11 Jeepers
No, the same thing applies.
Quit the gish gallop and make an effort to make a positive contribution to the conversation.
The same reason you (and I) assume people who believe they can talk to a “god” are insane is why I believe people who think that elections are honest by default are insane.
Happy?
Now quit trying to get cheap gotchas. You know you’re wrong because if you were right you would make an actual substantive argument.
Re: Re: Re:12
Mic drop
Re: Re: Re:13
The people who talk like this on the bus believe they have all the seats to themselves because they are persuasive.
Re: Re: Re:12
The same reason you (and I) assume people who believe they can talk to a “god” are insane is why I believe people who think that elections are honest by default are insane.
Ahh yes – being able to count to a few hundred thousand versus the ability to see shit that isn’t there. That’s quite the false equivalence you’ve concocted there.
And LostinLodos, if that’s what you call a ‘Mic Drop’ update your standards, pal.
Re: Re: Re:3
Have you been on a different planet for the last 20 years?
Were you not paying attention when Democrats were pointing out the numerous ways in which election were already unfair prior to 2020, none of which were addressed?
Were you on a drug-induced stupor in 2020?
What you are describing is not what happened.
The fact that you think that is what happened shows that have either been misled or are being wilfully blind.
You mean, like signature verification?
Re: Re: Re:4
You mean, like signature verification?
Yeah, so what do you propose for the age cutoff since cursive hasn’t been taught in 20 something years?
Would you feel better if we used slide rules to count ballots, you fucking Luddite?
Re: Re: Re:5 Amazing
So you propose not verifying mail in ballots?
Re: Re:
“You “believe” the official 2020 Election results, but have no method whatsoever to personally verify your “Belief”.”
I have plenty of evidence. The election was moderated by international bodies who saw no problems. Various recounts were triggered or otherwise carried out finding no major discrepancy (and some proved the Democrats won by a larger margin than originally reported). Even the “Cyber Ninjas” who had every reason to locate problems found nothing. There have been dozens of court cases and none revealed any evidence whatsoever of wrongdoing.
There is, simply, no evidence that there was anything wrong except for the rantings of a sore loser, a crackhead pillow salesman who’s been forced to pay millions to people who disproved his claims and associated lunatics who have not shown any reason to doubt the outcome.
My position is clear and unchanged – if there was a problem with the election, present your evidence. If you have none, I have no reason to believe that this was not the true result, and I suggest you stop basing your beliefs on wild claims with zero evidence. I know it’s hard for you to accept that your incompetent orange hero actually lost the election and that the popular vote always goes against the “red wave” you desperately hope for, but this fantasy of an invalid election is just that, according to all actual evidence presented in this universe.
Re: Re:
You “believe” the official 2020 Election results, but have no method whatsoever to personally verify your “Belief”.
Something as objective as fucking COUNTING requires no degree of ‘belief.’
That somehow you think it does, even after all of the RECOUNTS is exactly the problem with about a third of the US population. You were told that facts are subjective, and you believed it.
We’ve been able to count for millennia. That you seem to have an issue with it just means that you need a refresher on elementary school math.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re: Requirements
It also doesn’t require opaque software without a public audit trail.
That’s. The. Point.
Re: Re: Re:2
It doesn’t use such.
That’s the point.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3 Learn to use date ranges on Google
That wasn’t the consensus in Democrat circles before Trump came along. The only difference between me back then and me now is that nothing has changed.
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/magazine/06Vote-t.html
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2009/apr/30/e-voting-electronic-polling-systems
https://verifiedvoting.org/publication/summary-of-the-problem-with-electronic-voting/
https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2004/11/the_problem_wit.html
https://www.cnn.com/2012/11/05/opinion/frum-election-chaos/index.html
https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article24530650.html
https://homepage.divms.uiowa.edu/~jones/voting/SHOTpaper.pdf
https://www2.itif.org/evoting.pdf
Re: Re: Re:4
There are known problem with electronic voting.
There is no evidence that there were problems on the scale required for Trump to have actually won the 2020 election.
These are things that can be true at the same time without contradiction. Te orange con artist lost, and he’s starting to be held accountable for the many crimes he committed in office and after, as anyone paying attention to him outside of his TV show would have predicted. Deal with it.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:5 Evidence of absence
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
The people who run election have a duty to provide positive evidence of fairness that is impossible to for observers to achieve with voting machines as currently implement.
That’s election fraud by default. Nothing more needs to be shown.
But voting machines are not the only problem.
Re: Re: Re:6
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Try that in court. It’s one thing to be stupid here. It’s another thing to find a lawyer stupid enough to put his law license on the line for that bullshit.
Re: Re: Re:7 Ecktually
You have to set your prior probabilities correctly. There are lots of cases where absence of evidence can prove malfeasance, such as where there is a positive duty to prove a duty has been properly fulfilled.
In an election, there is a positive duty to prove fairness. That’s the common-law standard across many decisions.
Failure to show due diligence, i.e. absence of evidence of required practice, is direct evidence of negligence.
https://lawexplores.com/on-the-absence-of-evidence/
Re: Re: Re:8
In an election, there is a positive duty to prove fairness.
Self-sabotage by telling your constituents it’s already rigged and they shouldn’t use mail-in voting kinda fucked you guys over in 2020. Not to mention offing a whole bunch of them with Covid misinformation. But thinking you’re going to use that and cry about things being not fair is just piling on more of your ignorance hoping the rest of us are as blinded by the cult as you are.
Sorry if you feel that caused some ‘unfairness’, but if you’re too goddamned stupid to get out of your own fucking way, that’s on you.
Re: Re: Re:9 Blaming the victim?
Let’s be clear: COVID was an entirely manufactured crisis.
Let it always be on your conscience that getting rid of Trump was seen as important enough that the elderly were allowed to die in their own filth, shoved on to unproven ventilators en masse, given unproven and actively harmful treatments, denied effective treatments and denied basic human compassion.
All because some people disapproved of Trump.
Lie to yourself about it all you like, but the truth has a habit of sticking around.
You know what the truth is. You know that the POINT was to justify things like massively insecure mail-in ballots.
You know.
Stop the games before it destroys you, if it hasn’t already.
Re: Re: Re:10
Wow.. may I suggest you get news from factual sources?
“unproven ventilators”
Ventilators are proven. They’re a last ditch effort used to try and save people who would die without intervention, not all can be saved but some do pull through. They’ve been used for many respiratory illnesses for many years.
“denied effective treatments”
I assume you mean the anti-parasitic drug that has no actual proven effectiveness on a viral infection despite some early reports that suggested some benefits (usually in countries where many people had parasites, or where the studies were retracted for poor methodology), where the company that made it told you it wasn’t effective yet people started raiding feed stores for horse paste? Nah, the fact that doctors wouldn’t prescribe it isn’t a conspiracy.
“All because some people disapproved of Trump.”
Yes, the global crisis is all because you elected a moron. Millions of people around the world died, and millions more suffered long term health problems, just for you. Especially the ones who died long after he failed, and especially the ones in countries not politically aligned with the US.
Fucking cult morons.
Re: Re: Re:11
So, sending infected and contagious people into lockdown locations filled with high risk people didn’t have any effect on the death rates? You may want to look into those nursing homes and senior assistant living locations.
Texas and Florida have some of the highest population numbers in the country but where are their counts vs New York and California.
Sticking infected people in populations of non-infected people is one issue.
Trump closed inbound travel from the source country, China. Democrats immediately fought to over turn that and allow unrestricted travel from China. Notice the worst cases of covid spread are in the early months of the pandemic, and are in cities with high volume Chinese mainland flights? SoCal, Washington, New York? Feel free to ignore your part in that.
Your choices in leadership opted to fight for free travel from the source of the vit’s.
Re: Re: Re:12
Source of the virus
No idea what a vit is. Thanks Siri
Re: Re: Re:12
“So, sending infected and contagious people into lockdown locations filled with high risk people didn’t have any effect on the death rates? ”
Always absolutes with you… That may have had some effect, but so did Trump refusing to deal with the spread while he thought it was only blue states affected. Also, don’t you people pretend that Biden/Obama have complete control over everything that happens if something goes wrong? What gives Trump a free pass?
“Trump closed inbound travel from the source country, China.”
He did attempt to. AFTER the virus has already spread to Europe and it was coming into the US from there. By that point, it was too late to just pretend China was the problem. By the time cheeto boy tried blocking flights from China, Italy was already in lockdown, but I don’t recall hearing him demanding restrictions there. That’s where the criticism was – by the time he decided to block China, it wasn’t even the biggest infection vector.
“in cities with high volume Chinese mainland flights”
Flights from everywhere, jackass. Those are airports everyone visits including the people Trump decided not to stop coming in. Whether or not it originated there, it was already on several continents, and people were still allowed to fly in and spread it around. Yes, people went largely to popular tourist and business destinations, Chinese or otherwise.
Re: Re: Re:11 Primary sources
I can see how you could come to that conclusion if you use news outlets as sources, but if you actually cared about anything but approval from activists, you would have done your own research.
Ventilators are extremely dangerous pieces of kit, and they were being indiscriminately at high pressure to cure an issue that was misunderstood
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK560535/
https://myhealth.ucsd.edu/RelatedItems/6,756755
https://www.statnews.com/2020/04/08/doctors-say-ventilators-overused-for-covid-19/
https://wexnermedical.osu.edu/blog/a-ventilator-might-save-your-life-but-at-what-cost
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/ventilator-induced-lung-injury
There is no primary study I am aware of that showed a positive risk-benefit for ventilator use in COVID-19 patients. It is highly likely that the high initial case mortality rates were at least partially due to ventilators.
It’s also important to note, use again, that there is VASTLY more high quality primary evidence for ivermectin in this context than for any intervention touted by health officials.
https://c19ivm.org/meta.html
The only question is: Did you do your own research?
If you did not, and were dissuaded from doing so, you were most likely under the influence of a cult, and likely still are.
https://medium.com/@zelphontheshelf/10-signs-youre-probably-in-a-cult-1921eb5a3857
Re: Re: Re:6
“Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
If you’re so sure there was fraud, where’s the evidence? No, you can’t claim that it’s voting machines because you also claim that paper ballots were fraud as well.
So, where’s the proof. What are you basing this on other than “Trump lost”?
Re: Re: Re:7 Extraordinary claims
The dispute here is about what is an extraordinary claim.
Is it unreasonable to think, as Democrats have claimed for decades, that US elections are prone to fraud and that (as Democrats have claimed) machine voting is especially vulnerable?
Is it extraordinary to suppose that an election where ballots were mailed in and signature verification and voter ID was perfunctory at best might have had issues?
Is it a stretch to assume that a party who goes to court repeatedly to restrict access and cross checks on voter rolls and then wins on procedural grounds might have something to hide.
Or… in the alternative…
Is it reasonable to assume that politicians and political activists are not corrupt by default and don’t need to be actively held to account?
What is the unreasonable assumption that requires extraordinary proof?
Re: Re: Re:8
There’s zero dispute. You have zero evidence.
If you can willfully misinterpret others words, your words and gestures can be interpreted as a concession.
Re: Re: Re:9 Halderman report
Your entire conceptual framework is warped and motivated by nothing but pettiness and narrow minded political considerations.
An election where it is impossible to find evidence of fraud is systemically corrupt and fraudulent by default.
Evidence of such systemic corruption, and the glossing over of that fact, is but one of many independent lines of evidence of fraud. See the recently unsealed Halderman report.
https://twitter.com/patel_patriot/status/1669401724132442115
Your willful ignorance of things like this IS evidence of the corruption of political outlook. Saying there is no evidence IS disinformation. It IS bullshit, in Frankfurt’s definition. Your lack of effort in formulating denial IS evidenced that you know you are wrong.
Re: Re: Re:
“Something as objective as fucking COUNTING requires no degree of ‘belief.’”
I think the narrative is that because they kept counting and didn’t just stop when it looked like the mango guy was winning, that’s proof of a conspiracy.
Of course, they’ll ignore the fact that numerous states actively passed rules stating that mail in ballots couldn’t be counted until the in person votes were finished, and Democrat voters were more likely to not be idiots waiting in COVID lines when there was another choice, so the them the fact that votes were counted in the prescribed order is suspicious even though the total didn’t change.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2 You think wrong
No, the problem is that (in some places) they stopped counting and told observers to go home, then started counting again after observers had gone home, after which vote tally diverged markedly from previous patterns.
That among a laundry list of other problems.
Counting even a single after the observers were gone should have been enough to invalidate the whole affair. It just shouldn’t happen in a fair election.
Re: Re: Re:3
Counting without observers is criminal.
The state should have been tossed and a new vote done
Every state with observers who couldn’t read the ballots do to distance should have been tossed and a revote done.
Every state that closed polling locations without notice should be tossed.
Every state that didn’t allow in person voting should be tossed.
For a few it’s about Trump. For many more it’s about election integrity.
Notice I didn’t say anything about invalidating mail in ballots: infact, more should have been counted.
There is zero logical need for 3 signatures on a ballot.
This election was full of criminal activity. But dems ignore it because they won and hate the opponent that much.
I remind you of two former great states that fell due to voting fraud.
Sparta, and Rome.
Rome simply desolved the senate. Became a corrupted empire, and well… history.
Sparta is more like us in their fall. So busy we’re the people fighting each other, with word and sword, that their neighbours simply walk in and blended. Until they out numbered.
Re: Re: Re:4
So, have you proof of this or are did you feel the need to lie in support for your godking?
Re: Re: Re:5
Yes: I have proof.
Multiple state governors instituted mail voting and polling changes by themselves. Without the proper and mandated legislative process. That’s criminal. That’s a violation of the Constitution!
Re: Re: Re:6
“I have proof,” he said while pointing indignantly at the turd he just shat out.
Re: Re: Re:7 Why would you think that's an argument?
That’s an admission that you know you are wrong and have no argument to offer.
If you have something constructive to say, say it. If you don’t, hurl crude insults.
Re: Re: Re:4
You know nothing of voting fraud. You know nothing of Sparta. You know nothing of Rome. This is what happens to your brain when you educate yourself with memes.
For us who still abide by reality, if you are curious to learn about Sparta and Rome, see UNC historian Bret Devereaux’s excellent acoup.blog . Click on the Rome and Sparta tags in the tag cloud to see actual goings on in Greek and Roman antiquity. Way more interesting and illuminating than memes.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
So what if it is false?
People saying false things is not inherently dangerous. Almost everything that anyone has ever said is either false or could reasonably be construed as false. The remainder can (and often is) construed as false for political or other gain.
What is damaging is censorship, especially unequally enforced censorship. Censorship itself is an act of extreme violence, often motivated by intense hatred and anger, especially when committed by those who sincerely believe they are suppressing untruths.
Avoidance of disinformation does not excuse the far greater sin of advocated for suppression of opinions just because you believe them to be false.
Re: Re:
Galaxy brained take. You should write for the failing New York Times.
Re: Re: Re:
Actually, I am beginning to suspect it is a bot.
Re: Re:
Have you stopped kicking puppies yet?
COVID-19 is just another flu. COVID-19 vaccines doesn’t work. The election was stolen.
The above is a false statement.
Examples of this that actually matters?
Extreme violence? Well, if you are going define it that way your argument becomes essentially null and void because you have taken a position that is extremely unreasonable and antagonistic with little bearing on reality.
And what if someone know they are factually wrong and doesn’t want to be associated with lying assholes or extremely stupid people who are unable to grok factual reality?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re: Censorship is violence.
Really?
That’s your defense?
Try to at least educate yourself a little about basic epistemology before you make ridiculous claims like that.
The idea that there are things that can be objectively, definitely shown to be false is the biggest, most damaging disinformation that conceivable.
It is has been shown as rigorously as a it is possible to show that your notion of “truth” is faulty and unusable, and yet you persist with it, presumable because it is useful lever to power.
Stop being silly. Truth cannot be proven, the claim that it can is misinformation. Conclude from the that what you will.
Start with Peano, Russell (and Whitehead) and inform yourself about Hilbert’s program that set out to establish what your claiming and was shown to be misguided by Goedel, von Neuman, Tarski, Turing, Wittgenstein… among others.
I really can’t see why this even needs to be a discussion, much less how defendants of the notion that truth can somehow be objectively verified manage to see themselves as the good guys in this equation.
You’re not. Censorship is as close to objective evil as it is possible to achieve. Defeating disinformation is not an acceptable excuse for it.
[the acceptable excuse is when what is being censor is a proximal, immediate harm in its physical embodiment, or arguably in its production. None of hypothetical b.s. that gets trotted out… that’s really not okay]
Re: Re: Re:2
This is bathetic.
Here’s a list of some commonly held evils, and I will alphabetize them: bullshit, censorship, corruption, genocide, lying, murder, rape, theft, war.
I’m curious, how would you reorganize this list numerically, with 1 being the most evil and then ranking them downward?
I will then ask you why you ordered the list the way you did. You are free to perform the answer that all are equally bad and you shouldn’t be forced to choose, but I will follow up with:
If all are equally bad, should we devote the same resources to judging and stopping behavior in the future? Do we treat liars and bullshitters with the same consequences as war criminals, all the way to collective punishment?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
Not that hard, since censorship, lying and “bullshit” are the same thing.
Censorship is a form of lying that is most often employed by corrupt individuals who seek to excuse or justify rape, murder, war, theft, and, ultimately, genocide.
It is often the sine qua non of those evils, because it is how you get otherwise rational people to believe in irrational things.
Re: Re: Re:4
Your comments address censorship, please define your definition of the word. Examples help.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:5 Definitions (progress, at least)
It’s really hard to find a serious thinker who has ever said anything positive about censorship, so I’ll pick some of my favourites:
“Censorship is telling a man he can’t have a steak just because a baby can’t chew it.” -Twain
“Censorship is advertising paid by the government.” -Federico Fellini
“Censorship is never over for those who have experienced it. It is a brand on the imagination that affects the individual who has suffered it, forever.” -Nadine Gordimer
“A censor is a man who knows more than he thinks you ought to.” -Granville Hicks
“Censorship of anything, at any time, in any place, on whatever pretense, has always been and always be the last resort of the boob and the bigot.” – Eugene Gladstone O’Neill
“Censorship reflects a society’s lack of confidence in itself.” Potter Stewart
“Let us be clear: censorship is cowardice. … It masks corruption. It is a school of torture: it teaches, and accustoms one to the use of force against an idea, to submit thought to an alien “other.” But worst still, censorship destroys criticism, which is the essential ingredient of culture.” – Pablo Antonio Cuadra
But I don’t want to belabour the point…
It’s very easy to find what sorts of people oppose censorship, and very easy to find who supports it. I assure you, if a person is defined by the company they keep, being pro-censorship very quickly loses it’s appeal.
Re: Re: Re:6
All you’ve told us you utterly lack even the most basic comprehension of censorship.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:7 Defining away the problem
Classic conventionalist stratagem.
Your theory is that censorship is good and noble, so any definition that fails to lift it to the pedestal of virtue must be evidence of a faulty definition.
Oxford gives:
cen·sorship
noun
1.
the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.
But I think this is overbroad.
The ACLU has a better rendition:
Britannica is also good:
But it’s easy for you to sit and snipe from the side-lines. Give me your definition.
Re: Re: Re:8
Our theory is that being told to take your bullshit elsewhere is not censorship, and that people not going to platforms that allow you to spout your bullshit is not censorship. Failure to get many people to listen to you does not entitle you to force your way into groups that reject your bullshit. So long as you have somewhere to post your bullshit you have not been censored. That people do not want to listen and agree with you is a your problem, and often indicate that your views do not represent those of a large number of people.
Re: Re: Re:8
“But it’s easy for you to sit and snipe from the side-lines. Give me your definition.”
I will attempt to summarize your definition of censorship.
– It is whatever I say it is –
This seems to be inline with the general views of conservative thinkers.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:9 Funny
You don’t actually give your definition.
Re: Re: Re:10
No one asked
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:11 I did
I have asked you, and I will ask again: What’s your definition of censorship?
Re: Re: Re:12
Being silenced by force, or the threat of force. I.e. Devin Nunes trying to find the ID of Devine Nunes cow is censorship, as the threat of a laws suite will have silenced people other than the cow. Being banned from s a social media site, or more that one is not, as there are other sites and place that you can speak. That is such bans do not silence a person.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:13 Incomplete definition
“Being silenced by force, or the threat of force.”
That’s certainly one form, but it’s an incomplete definition.
Censors, historically withhold information from others. It’s not necessarily silencing directly, it is enforcing ignorance.
That is also largely why it is so morally reprehensible.
Re: Re: Re:14
It’s not necessarily silencing directly, it is enforcing ignorance.
Now we’re getting somewhere…let’s extrapolate that concept and apply it to a voting bloc. Perhaps some simple-minded folks, not too bright, superstitious, believing that an imaginary sky man will solve all of their problems. People who think praying accomplishes something. People who live in a perpetual state of victimhood, blaming any and everyone except themselves and their shitty choices for their miserable lot in life.
The problem isn’t censors. You know this, or else you’re deliberately being a dumbass. The problem is 75 million already marginally stupid Americans happily letting themselves being exploited by a dimwitted conman and the assholes he surrounds himself with.
It begs the question as to how fine you are with letting them get fleeced out of their last dollar, and ending up on the public assistance rolls that they all vote against. They’ll become everyone’s problem sooner or later, and they won’t like it when they eventually figure it out.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:15 Irrational beliefs
If you think you don’t have irrational beliefs you are either a fool or you are lying to yourself.
Get off your high horse. You have exactly zero right to decide what other people should believe, much less what ideas other’s should be exposed to.
The very gall to even suggest such a thing!
Re: Re: Re:16
You have exactly zero right to decide what other people should believe, much less what ideas other’s should be exposed to.
Oh, I have every fucking right to decide what other people should believe, and you’re not going to censor me, you hypocritical shitbag, you!
The very gall to even suggest such a thing!
Well, being a logic and philosophy guy, I’m sure you’re familiar with Epicurus…Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? Perhaps you can tell me exactly what the utility is for such a thing, apart from having an undisputable target to blame malfeasance on.
Now don’t get me wrong – I’m all for stupid people being stupid. It was entertaining as hell during covid to watch the rubes eat horse dewormer, aquarium cleaner, and play chicken with a ventilator.
But irrational belief that has been responsible throughout history for countless lives lost? Wars? Science that was prosecuted as heresy?
That’s why I’m on my high horse. It’s pretty easy when you’re not a hypocritical piece of shit with an imaginary scapegoat to blame your assholery on.
Re: Re: Re:17
What illiterate types like Beeze call “censorship” is really free speech.
Re: Re: Re:12
“I have asked you, and I will ask again: What’s your definition of censorship?”
No, you are incorrect. I was not asked to define anything and at this point my opinion is irrelevant to the conversation. You just want more to argue about.
Re: Re: Re:4 Superfecta of wrong
Beeze, you’ve hit the superfecta of wrong.
Can they be used interchangeably?
If interrogators ask a man suspected of killing his wife, “Did you kill your wife?” the man has a motivated reason to lie. Would it make sense for the man to say: “That’s censorship!”
Same thing, right?
Philosopher Harry Frankfurt wrote a treatise drawing a marked distinction between a lie and bullshit. He says the latter is worse than the former, because in order to lie, one must have a consciousness of what the truth is in order to create a falsehood against it. A bullshitter has a completely different aim and has no regard for truth and falsehood.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:5 "Same thing, right?"
No, what you have done is construct a straw man
It would help if your analogy made sense.
A question cannot be a lie or censorship. It doesn’t have a truth state.
Saying: “You killed your wife” when you know that it is not true is censoring the truth, otherwise known as a lie.
Now THAT is what you call an appeal to authority and also makes no sense.
In order for it to work you would need to claim that it is possible to have access to knowledge of actual truth. I don’t think there’s many epistemologists who would endorse such a claim.
My quick review of Frankfurt’s output seem to suggest that his ideas are extremely problematic.
This seems to be more than fair: “Frankfurt’s book, which purports to be a moral victory of sorts, and despite its popularity, is not only severely flawed and outdated from an educational, cognitive, and philosophical perspective, but it is also highly oppressive in several different but very important ways. ”
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226516908_Psychological_Philosophical_and_Educational_Criticisms_of_Harry_Frankfurt's_Concept_of_and_Views_about_Bullshit_in_Human_Discourse_Discussions_and_Exchanges
Re: Re: Re:6
Beeze (6-9-23 at 8:40 a.m.):
Also Beeze (6-7-23 at 2:44 p.m.):
By your own words, if the three are the same thing, they are synonymous and can be used interchangeably.
Censorship
Interrogator: Did you kill your wife?
Suspect: That’s censorship!
These answers can be either true or false depending on the evidence gathered and produced at trial.
Truth (innocence)
I: Did you kill your wife?
S: No.
Truth (confession of guilt)
I: Did you kill your wife?
S: Yes.
Lie (factual guilt)
I: Did you kill your wife?
S: No.
Lie (false confession)
I: Did you kill your wife?
S: Yes. (Context: The suspect was aware of his wife’s slaying and knows the person who did it and chooses to take the fall for the killer.)
Bullshit
I: Did you kill your wife?
S: Remember that time you guys accused OJ of killing his wife? What happened then, huh?
Are these things alike?
Take some other scenarios, where “That’s censorship!” is a choice of action along with telling the truth, lying or bullshitting.
Would you respond “That’s censorship!” if:
1. Your young child asks you where babies come from?
2. Some foreign dignitaries ask you how nuclear warheads work?
3. Someone comes up to you at a party and asks you what your favorite sexual position is?
4. You are working in a public place on some computer code, another programmer happens to be there, and strikes up a conversation about your work? (Context: Think about the secrecy and security many tech companies operate by. You’re a programmer and you find yourself in the social engineering predicament you were warned about during onboarding.)
5. Someone asks you to disclose your medical history?
I go back to Beeze (6-7-23 at 2:44 p.m.):
From the point of view of someone who has information that another doesn’t have but seeks, you cannot utter “censorship!” to that other person and treat it the same as giving them the information they want, lying to them, or uttering bullshit.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:7 Stop being aggressively [censored]
I have already explained: A question has no truth state.
It is not a proposition.
If you stop the question from being asked you are implicitly making the claimed that it wasn’t asked, which could be a lie or censorship.
What is bullshit is you rehashing this argument when I have made this point clear to you already, without addressing it.
It’s a basic concept: Questions are not propositions, so they cannot be true or false.
Re: Re: Re:8 Equivocating fulcrum
Equivocating fulcrum.
This is a lesser-known doctrine, apparently coined by Nicholas Shackel in 2005’s “The Vacuity of Postmodernist Methodology”.
I see what you are trying to pull. A plain reading of your statement is true; questions are not propositions. This is not in dispute.
But in your raising of this issue, you seek to sow confusion in the audience and advance an observation that you hope is a profound insight. You act like there is doubt or uncertainty that only you can resolve.
What you are implying:
A. Questions are not true or false.
B. Questions are not propositions.
C. Propositions are not questions (A=B, B=A).
D. If questions are not propositions, then propositions are either true or false (B and C) because they lack the mutually exclusive condition that prevents a question from possessing a truth or falsehood (A).
E. Propositions can be either true or false (A, B, C and D), but because propositions must be proved, they can only be discovered through questioning.
The fulcrum: Propositions are questions, because questions were used to advance the proposition.
F. Because a proposition used questions to come to a conclusion of true or false (D), the nature of questions not containing a condition to allow for truth or falsity (A and B) means that propositions themselves cannot prove answers to questions (E).
G. Propositions, like questions, have no truth state (fulcrum).
But the questions were asked and answered. Repeatedly and incessantly. We’re not arguing over the non-existence of questions, or what questions do we not know. We have a very long thread of questions, answers and responses. These things exist.
Are 110+ posts and multiple threads in this post evidence of censorship?
I’m making you defend your words from 6-7-23 at 2:44 p.m., censorship, lying and bullshit are the same thing.
Engaging with you is censorship? Engaging with you is lying?
You know what, upon closer inspection, engaging with you is bullshit.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:9 You fail Logic 101
What you are implying:
By definition.
https://www.cs.odu.edu/~toida/nerzic/content/logic/prop_logic/proposition/proposition.html
By definition, see above
Again, by definition
Propositions are either true or false by definition, it has no connection to questions.
What as a proposition a proposition is the fact that it has a truth state. That’s why it’s called “propositional logic”.
Lot’s of things don’t have truth states. Only propositions do.
Propositions don’t need to be proved. Truth states cannot be proved (as Tarski showed).
Again: Tarski gave a FORMAL proof. Don’t jump in with your Courtier bullshit.
Truth states are ASSIGNED. That’s why propositional logic is FORMAL. That’s what the word means. It means that there is no appeal to the content of propositions, only their formal relationships.
That’s WHY more expressive systems like mathematics, which assigns content to numbers, cannot be both complete and consistent.
Questions have nothing to do with propositions.
You don’t need questions to advance propositions.
They perfectly empty vessels apart from their assigned truth values.
Propositions cannot anything that was not already previously known.
That’s the paradox of analysis. That’s why I mentioned Peano in my very first comment in this whole thread.
These things matter and if you only attend to them you might have a shot at passing propositional logic 101.
Ever heard of the gish-gallop?
I’d consider that a form of lying, bullshit, censorship.
I have made a single, simple, well supported point and you just continually spew out nonsense claim after nonsense claim in the hope of tripping me up.
I’ve played this game before. I know how you guys work.
Re: Re: Re:6 Thanks for the link
I did click through on the link to Perla and Carifio and their critique of Frankfurt’s On Bullshit. It’s a very good paper.
I went beyond the synopsis to their actual text, which is more nuanced than the charged words of “severely flawed” and “highly oppressive” would lead on. The intensifiers are unwarranted. Plus, it’s not a takedown, but more of a “Here are the contexts of bullshit Frankfurt fails to capture, in which bullshit is a necessary and even positive element of knowledge and communication.” After reading both Frankfurt and this critique, both are worthy of sitting side by side on a bookshelf.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:7 Matter of opinion
You obviously approve of Frankfurt, so you are reading the critique (I didn’t call it a takedown, those are your words) with rose-tinted glasses.
I don’t Frankfurt is a bad thinker, I just think that his definition of Bullshit is ignorant of the state of the art on these sorts of questions.
The basic was more or less dealt with in Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations, so Frankfurt’s take is really brave in the face of established understandings across many disciplines on this sort of question.
Perla and Carifo reformulate Frankfurt’s definition in terms that are harmonious with that uncerstanding:
From within these fields (linguistics, philosophy, cognitive science etc.), the claim that “FIBS [Frankfurt’s interpretation of Bullshit] suggests that bullshit is a fixed, static, and inert linguistic and conceptual entity” is about as harsh as it gets without getting into an actual physical poop-slinging match. This is academic writing, remember, we have to be polite.
It’s tantamount to accusing someone of being a flat-earther.
In academic circles, this is tantamount to calling someone’s Mother an obese prostitute. It’s really harsh language.
A exclamation is a serious thing in academic literature. This is like accusing someone of a hanging crime.
An actual slur!
I think I’ve only once read a more damning “takedown” in academic literature. It’s pretty extreme, and rightfully so.
Re: Re: Re:8 See what I did there?
That list of features is not designed to be cherry picked from.
Rocco Perla is the sort of scholar that needs to be read in full context to understand what he is saying, because he is actually a very sophisticated health scientist who understood the limits language all too well.
James Carifio was the sort of scholar that needs to be read in full context to understand what he is saying, because he is actually a very sophisticated professor of education, psychology, research and statistics who understood the limits language all too well.
You didn’t spam, but you certainly snipped a line from a section that expressly disclaimed as being non-snippable.
You didn’t just leave some bit, you left out the defining context.
Don’t try to be smarmy about it: You were dishonest.
Re: Re: Re:8 Meta notes for Re:8 See what I did there?
The post by Bobson Dugnutt at
June 10, 2023 at 6:47 pm is a copypasta of text uttered by B**z*. The only changes are to the names of the scholars and their domains of expertise.
Per Wikipedia:
The post was intended to annoy Bz*, disrupt online discourse (with 225+ comments, this has gone on too long and I sincerely hope it’ll shut down and we can get on with our lives), or to be humorous (intended only at Bz*’s expense).
Re: Re: Re:2
Well, per your own words:
Me claiming that the above is false is entirely in the spirit of what you said since I construed it as such. If you don’t like getting your own words flung back at you, perhaps don’t make sweeping generalizations which are never actually true.
Considering everything else you said, especially “Censorship itself is an act of extreme violence”, you seem to have a tendency to play fast and loose with words and contexts which is why I’ll dismiss most of the stuff you say as emotive bullshit.
If you don’t like that, perhaps you should reconsider how you actually approach things.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3 Not to be technical
The claim that: “Almost everything that anyone has ever said is either false or could reasonably be construed as false. The remainder can (and often is) construed as false for political or other gain” is tautologically true.
Tarski basically proved it when he showed that truth cannot be defined.
Tautologies cannot be false, unless you want to abandon logic entirely and just accept whatever is convenient as truth.
If it’s not a tautology (which is anything with content), it can be reasonably construed as false.
Re: Re: Re:4
Ah, your are one of those people who loves to reference other peoples philosophical take on reality while not having an original thought yourself.
If you want to be all “there’s no truth” may I suggest you take that debate with someone on your level of navel-gazing so you both can discuss how to best ignore actual reality wherein normal people function and get shit done.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:5 Even if that were true
At least I know that there are giants upon whose shoulders I can stand, as opposed to anchoring myself to the shaky ground of long-discarded notions.
Re: Re: Re:6
I’m sure that’ll come in handy when you do your taxes.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:7 Non-sequitor
Spoken like one who has never heard of pragmatism.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pragmatism/
Re: Re: Re:8
If 2+2=4 is not true as you claim, how do you do you taxes?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:9 Ignorance is not a defence
Why do you think something needs to be true in order for it to be useful or important?
I don’t think you understand what “truth” is.
Re: Re: Re:10
“I don’t think you understand what “truth” is.”
Tell that to the IRS
Many people think “truth” is simply what they think and become confused when confronted with the opinions of others.
Re: Re: Re:10
I don’t think you understand what “truth” is.
Uh-huh. Try that in court. It’s worked exceptionally well for the 1/6 defendants sitting in prison.
Lay off the philosophical horseshit, will ya? You’re not good at it, and these comments stink to high heaven of desperation.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:11 Injustice does not excuse oppression
Imagine using political prisoners to try to prove your point. Would you also justify executions in North Korea? The law is the law, ya know.
That’s extremely distasteful of you.
Re: Re: Re:12
Imagine using political prisoners to try to prove your point.
There’s nothing really ‘political’ about shitting on the floor of the US Capitol, beating up cops, breaking stuff, or otherwise being somewhere where you’re clearly not supposed to be. Unless you want to argue that the fucktards on that stupid mission were confounded by the No Trespassing signs and all of the police telling them to stay out.
Do you think those people are that stupid?
Re: Re: Re:7
Beeze will claim to be a lawyer who specializes in representing sovereign citizens.
Re: Re:
“People saying false things is not inherently dangerous”
May I refer you to the Jan 6th insurrection attempt that was directly inspired by lies? Maybe the disinformation spread during COVID that led to people taking risks or refusing basic mitigation behaviours that led to people dying from the disease?
“Almost everything that anyone has ever said is either false or could reasonably be construed as false”
Which, ironically, is false. There are some things which can be ambiguous or debatable. There are things which are not. You not liking the facts does not mean that your fictions should be treated as if they have equal weight.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re: I sincerely hope you are not being serious
Really? Just how far behind the curve are you, exactly?
Re: Re: Re:2
How about yourself?
It appears that you assume a level of education within the public that allows them to differentiate lies from fact. I propose this assumption is incorrect.
Re: Re: Re:2
As I say, any actual evidence is welcome. The whinings of an orange toddler and a crack addict that never make it inside a courtroom don’t count.
Re: Re:
Read the Reddit channel r/HermanCainAward award to see how this idea plays out.
Re:
I think this makes rationale sense when combined with the first two reasons Mike listed. As long as they’re committed to combatting misinformation about the 2024 elections, continuing to combat 2020 misinfo might have reached the point of diminishing returns. That may change as we get closer to the 2024 elections, and content about 2020 conspiracy theories spikes.
Re: Ur-Fascism turned up to 11
These folks are who Umberto Eco had in mind for No. 11 for the 14 defining features of fascism in his 1995 essay, “Ur-Fascism”:
The cliche that everyone is the hero in their own story gets taken to this conclusion.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Don't cite Eco if you don't want to read the whole article
That list of features is not designed to be cherry picked from.
Eco is the sort of philosopher that needs to be read in full context to understand what he is saying, because he is actually a very sophisticated semiotician who understood the limits language all too well.
“These features cannot be organized into a system; many of them contradict each other, and are also typical of other kinds of despotism or fanaticism.”
Re: Re: Re:
Why do you assume that I didn’t read Eco’s Ur-Fascism from top to bottom?
I didn’t spam the group with the entire text of Ur-Fascism — if you want to find it, look for the Web Archive PDF version of the essay published in the New York Review of Books (it gets past the NYRB’s paywall) — because much of it wasn’t relevant to the discussion here.
Courtier’s reply. “Ur-Fascism” was published in the New York Review of Books, edited to fit its audience’s level of reading comprehension. If you can find any NYRB article accessible, you will have no trouble comprehending “Ur-Fascism.”
Eco was asked to write it in 1995, to coincide with the 50th anniversary of the end of World War II. It begins and ends with Eco’s recollections of his childhood being born into fascism and seeing it suddenly wiped away as the war concluded. The 14 points of fascism are the juiciest bits of the essay and why it is so famous.
The 14 points are observational and narrative. However, fascism scholars Robert Paxton and Roger Griffin did a great job giving the 14 points a more rigorous academic definition and found Eco’s points in real-world examples.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2 Cherry-picking
You didn’t spam, but you certainly snipped a line from a section that expressly disclaimed as being non-snippable.
You didn’t just leave some bit, you left out the defining context.
Don’t try to be smarmy about it: You were dishonest.
Re: Re: Re:3
The context was World War II.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4 No
The context is a preface to that list saying that the items on the list are not unique identifiers that have individual utility. It’s flavour text that’s meant to be read as whole, taking individual items out of it to prove your case is either ignorant or deceptive.
“YouTube is worried about a Republican government in 2025”
Aren’t we all 🙁
Retribution towards media companies will the least of the shit a re-elected President Trump would pull – and he wouldn’t be as bad as Prez Desantis.
YouTube is worried about a Republican government in 2025.
So they’re trying to make it a more likely outcome?
If they’re willing to give election fraud lies a pass I look forward to the future releases when they add ‘vaccine lies’ and ‘all things Covid’ to the list of ‘say whatever the hell you want, we can’t be bothered to deal with it’.
Re:
It’s straight up cowardice on YT’s part, though not unique to them.
Re:
The World Health Organization recently said the COVID pandemic is over, so it may not be long until YouTube thinks COVID misinformation no longer matters.
Re: Re:
“The World Health Organization recently said the COVID pandemic is over”
Wrong. It said the COVID health emergency is over. Not the pandemic.
https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/05/1136367
I think the reason is the ugliness of the world
I guess that Youtube does not want to be suspected of meddling with the Republican primaries.
Election denialism is a serious topic in the Republican primaries. Interfering with that topic can sway the primaries either way, and even if it swings in the direction of denialism candidates, they actually tend to fare comparatively badly in general elections.
Getting out avoids some responsibility and fingerpointing. This is a “let’s avoid getting seen as being involved here” move. It’s not like it’s the first such one.
Re:
There is no such thing for YouTube as being uninvolved. Either they’re restricting the distribution of election denial or they’re facilitating it. There is no third position here.
Of course, facilitating it is the better option for YouTube because the Dems will wring their hands if they can find time in their already pack hand-wringing schedule, while the Republicans will do pretty much anything up to and including showing up at Google hq with enough firepower to kill everyone there.
Re: Re:
There is a reason I wrote “let’s avoid getting seen as being involved here” instead of the simpler “let’s avoid getting involved here”.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
#3 for sure. They released a virus and overplayed it as a pretext for mail in voting along with whatever cockamamie schemes not approved by state legislatures as constitutionally delegated thus rigged the election and didnt face any justice.
Release some bullshit virus on me once, shame on me for poll watching from across the warehouse. Release some bullshit virus on me twice…um ..well..you cant fool me twice.
So who knows how itll unfold and by golly if those maga people win it would be a real nuisance to have an anti-election denial policy in place so let’s get rid of it now.
They don’t want to have to ban republican political ads and right wing content creators after drawing mainstream press attention because they’ve given people a reason to expect that the rules be applied to them.
‘Well, we know they know it’s bullsh*t, but they’re going to keep yelling it anyway and we really didn’t want to do anything anyway, soooo… Let’s change the rules to benefit conservatives yet again then go back to tackling the real threat to democracy, LGBTQ+ content creators bring monetised.’
Re:
That’s not a threat to democracy, it’s a threat to quarterly earnings, which is far more important.
A good decision
It is important to hear and give all due consideration to both sides of the story.
Some people believe the sun rises in the East while others believe the sun rises in the West. Both points of view deserve equal coverage.
Some people believe the earth is round while others believe the earth is a flat.
The universe is a large sphere with the stars affixed to its inside.
The earth is a large flat disk in the center of the universe.
The sun and moon move in a circular pattern around the top of the disk.
The earth is on an infinite stack of turtles.
(it’s turtles all the way down)
The final turtle of that infinite stack is propelled by a rocket.
The rocket moves at 9.8 m/s^2 giving us the illusion of gravity.
The rocket is powered by a perpetual motion machine so it never stops.
Silly skeptics would ask: if the Earth is flat, how do you explain that the sun moves South in the winter?
Stupid Round Earther: the sun moves South in the winter for the same reason that birds move South for winter — because it’s warmer in the South during winter! Look at Australia where Christmas is hottest day of the year.
Join the flat Earth society. We have recruitment centers all around the globe for your convenience.
Hey YouTube, be sure to give equal consideration to the following:
Astrology governs our lives.
Crystal healing is real.
Dianetics is science.
Myers-Briggs 16 personality types test is a thing.
Fortune-telling is accurate.
People can levitate.
Feng-shui is spacial well-being.
Acupuncture heals.
Colon cleansing is detoxifiation.
Ear candles remove wax.
Ayurveda is a thing.
Vaccines cause autism.
Perpetuum mobile is the future of energy.
Psychokinesis influences matter.
Reiki is a thing.
The Holocaust never existed.
Climate Change is a hoax.
The Law of Attraction is a thing.
The Moon Landing is a conspiracy.
Homeopathy is medicine.
Palm-reading predicts the future.
Earth is flat.
Ghosts are real.
Numerology is a thing.
Re:
In YouTube’s defence, their algorithm absolutely pushes every single item on your list.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Imagine, if you will...
Imagine a world in which belief in any one of the “conspiracy theories” and pseudoscience you list is enforced and opposing opinions to them are banned?
Trust me: It’s far better to let just people who people who believe in crystal believe in crystal healing, than to put the social architecture in place that allows people who believe that the Earth is flat send those who believe the Earth is round to the gallows.
Re: Re:
I did, which is why that shit should be exterminated. You are of course free to gorge on ivermectin and ingest bleach.
People can believe whatever they want, but that doesn’t mean that I’ll let them use my property to spread it – just like how any other owner of private property is within their rights not wanting to be associated with it.
So no, I will not trust the word of some rando on the internet who thinks they know better than everyone else.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
Interesting choice of words.
Tell me you rely on CNN for your opinions without telling me you rely on CNN for your opinions.
What I can’t wrap my head around is it is how it is even possible to get one’s head stuck so very far up one’s own rear.
What brings a person to be so violently attached to defending obvious lies spread by media conglomerates when a mere moment’s critical reflection would have revealed the truth of the matter?
Re: Re: Re:2
Did you just assume I’m from the US? You know there’s a whole fucking world outside the US? Mind blowing, isn’t it? But I guess that’s what I get for engaging with someone who most likely can’t find the US on an atlas.
That you can’t wrap your head around something is because you have it firmly stuck up you rear. Not really my problem that you don’t realize that.
Yes, why do some people reject factual reality. We have Danny Lemoi for example, he ignored factual reality and tried to substitute it with his own – he kinda died by ingesting ivermectin while espousing its benefits.
Oh, about the bleach:
So tell me, what are the lies I tell? Or perhaps the problem is that you can’t stomach factual reality?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
The irony is absolutely staggering.
Source?
Not that he died, but that it was Ivermectin that killed him.
It had better be a high-quality one, because I have high quality, primary sources up the wazoo that says you are wrong.
“an opt-in Internet panel survey of 502 U.S.
adults was conducted in May 2020”
Not exactly high-quality science there, bud.
But you know what’s really crazy? People were, and continue, inject cosmetics ingredients for which a substantial portion of the population have hypersensitivity to (PEG) straight into their arms without even aspirating the needle!
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8783631/
Re: Re: Re:4
There’s no irony here, only someone who stupidly jumped to conclusions and then has to actual comeback.
Why the impotent answer? Got nothing to back it up? It doesn’t actually matter, people have died from ivermectin because some peddlers of misinformation said it was beneficial – and that’s a fucking fact.
I see you used your towering intellect to debunk it in a factual manner.
It’s funny how some people claim to have good sources but never cite them and instead try to deflect it by citing something totally unrelated to the topic at hand.
You are just another bullshitter that talks and talks and talks, without substance.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:5 You don't get it
You mean the way that you jumped to the conclusion that I’m American?
I didn’t even claim you were American, I claimed that you get your opinions from CNN. But it was a general claim, since the overlap between major outlets (via news agencies like Reuters) is immense, even internationally.
I asked for a high quality source for this claim.
There are reams of high quality (scientific gold standard, which is to say independent peer-reviewed randomized controlled trials) that say you are wrong.
So it’s not “impotent” to ask what quality of sources you are relying on.
Here, I’ll even help you: Here’s a list of ALL study on the safety and effectiveness of ivermectin in this context, you can take your pick.
https://c19ivm.org/meta.html
You made the initial claim that he died from ivermectin. Still waiting for that source.
And none of that low quality stuff you used to support your claim about bleach (though I don’t doubt some people did drink bleach).
Re: Re: Re:6
So people actually drank bleach then? Hedging your bets, huh?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:7 People do weird things, and lie on surveys all the time
Of course people do weird things.
People also injected PEG straight into their arms without even aspirating the needle!
I am not responsible for weirdos who do things like that.
That doesn’t magically provide a source for your claim about ivermectin or turn your low quality survey into good science.
Re: Re: Re:8
I didn’t make any claims, take it up with whoever did. I’m just pointing how you weaselly you are.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:9 That's rich
Did I claim people didn’t drink bleach?
Re: Re: Re:8
“I am not responsible … ”
Let’s just leave it at that.
Re: Re: Re:8
Reminder: There are no nonfraudulent sources promitung Ivermectin as a Covid-19 treatment.
Re: Re: Re:9
promoting*
Re: Re: Re:10
As a reminder: Here’s the professional scammers who are the root source of why anyone has even heard of “Ivermectin” and “Covid” together:
https://time.com/6092368/americas-frontline-doctors-covid-19-misinformation/
Re: Re: Re:11
The founder of America’s Frontline Doctors and its spokesman both participated in the insurrection. Simone Gold pleaded guilty and John Strand was convicted.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:9 Troll
Do you even know how many independent peer review RCTs there are supporting the use of, say the Pfizer vaccine.
It’s a simple question, but I’d curious to see if you are capable of anything other than the brainless one-liners you have offered so far.
Your contributions have been really low effort, even for a stupid troll, and I think you can do better.
Re: Re: Re:10
Do you even know how many independent peer review RCTs there are supporting the use of, say the Pfizer vaccine.
What difference does it make? There is no number that will satisfy a fucktard who has decided, based on bullshit that the vaccine will make a tail grow out of their ass.
And I’m fine with quarantining them and letting them die, frankly. But I see no reason to waste a finite number of resources on these people once they realize that they’ve once again done something stupid in their infinte quest of ‘owning the libs.’
So stop with this exercise in nonsense, fool. Just take responsibility for your decisions, and drop dead instead of wasting hospital beds on a disease you chose ‘not to believe in.’
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:11 How many
It does make a difference, because you don’t know.
You claim the right to censor others based on things that you know absolutely nothing about because you self-censored yourself from people who were trying to correct you.
It’s time to do you own research.
How many?
Re: Re: Re:12
Oh you get your panties in a wad when backed into a corner. The number is irrelevant.
Why?
Tell me, what was the vaccine program called, and who instituted it? In other words, what ‘sci-fi spaceship travel velocity’ was it named, why, and by who?
Then we can talk about how fucking many.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:13 If it's irrelevant it should be problem to tell me.
^ What the title says: If it’s irrelevant it should be problem to tell me.
Don’t answer questions with irrelevant frippary. If you don’t know, just own up to it.
How many?
Re: Re: Re:14
To answer my own question for you, candy ass, it was ‘Operation Warp Speed’ initiated by then president trump. Now, what do you think the objective was with that kind of name? Any guesses, or do I have to spell that shit out for you too?
You like starting shit in the middle, where you can cherry pick your information. Disingenuous, and feeding ignorance.
Typical.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:15 Quit dodging
The question was: “How many independent peer review[ed] RCTs there are supporting the use of, say[,] the Pfizer vaccine.”
The answer should ideally be in the form a number, but I can also help you out if you don’t understand what any of the terms independent, peer-reviewed or RCT means.
I am open to discussions about this “gold-standard”, including as to whether “evidence-based medicine” as a concept isn’t pseudoscientific by definition.
But since the definition I provided is generally agreed upon by medical professionals the gold standard, and there are 46 trials that meet this criteria for Ivermectin that overwhelmingly show safety and efficacy, I would like to specifically know if you know how many do the same for the Pfizer mRNA product.
I know the answer. I want to know if you know.
Re: Re: Re:16
there are 46 trials that meet this criteria for Ivermectin that overwhelmingly show safety and efficacy
Sure, if you’re from an African country where you get worms from your water. The morons who ate the stuff from Tractor Supply were in the US. Do you live in a place with bacteria-laden water?
Re: Re: Re:17 Racist much?
Parasitic infection are very common in the US.
Also: How does the fact that people were obtaining bootleg supply of a proven effective medication justify withholding that medication in favor of ones that have been shown to harmful.
You are literally trying to justify evil with greater evil and patting yourself on the back for following orders so well.
This is not the moral victory you think it is.
Re: Re: Re:18
Parasitic infection are very common in the US.
Oh I’m sure. And if the US was the typical African country where this was happening, it might be relevant.
How does the fact that people were obtaining bootleg supply
They’re no different than any other addict trying to find an alternative and self-medicating with it. I could care less about the morality you’re trying to inject into the argument. Taking stuff for horses was, is, and always will be the fault of the dumb fucks who chose to do it.
There’s plenty of warning labels on it. They’re on there exactly for people like them.
Re: Re: Re:19 Racism
That’s incredibly racist of you.
Almost 20% of people in the US have chronic Toxoplasma gondii infections, which can produce… wait for it… flu-like symptoms.
https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2014/p0508-npi.html
https://www.cdc.gov/parasites/toxoplasmosis/gen_info/faqs.html
“Ivermectin significantly inhibit[s] replication of the tachyzoites of T. gondii RH strain”.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4116007/
This is why you need to learn to do your own research.
Re: Re: Re:18
For that statement to be true, almost all of the doctors in the world would have to have been in on the conspiracy. Therefore you believe in a lie created by a conspiracy that denies all science.
Re: Re: Re:19 Don't be daft
Professions routinely get things wrong.
It’s not a “conspiracy”, calling it a “conspiracy theory” implies that profession practice and opinion should remain static throughout all history.
It’s just a low-effort take on your part.
Re: Re: Re:18
Never once happened outside of your demented hallucinations.
Re: Re: Re:19 Object permanance
Did you know that babies have weak grasp on the concept that objects continue existing when they can’t see them. Similarly, a bare denial of evidence when you actively avoid looking for it does not actually make that evidence go away.
Good science happens when you take great pains to look for evidence in the light most favourable to that evidence and fail to find it.
Simply saying “no evidence” in the face of overwhelming evidence that you studious avoid interacting with shows only bad faith and a cultish pseudoscientific mindset.
Re: Re: Re:16
Translated that for you.
Re: Re: Re:17 Prrof
I have shown high-quality you proof of the effectiveness of Ivermectin.
You have not shown any high-quality proof of the effectiveness of the vaccine.
Re: Re: Re:18
You have showed zero proof that ivermectin has better efficacy for COVID than the actual vaccines. But this is what you do, you hold up one thing as if it was relevant when it actually isn’t while displaying nothing but solipsism.
Re: Re: Re:19 Of course
There is no high quality evidence for the efficacy vaccines to begin with.
All that there is is the single industry funded study that doesn’t actually say what you almost certainly doesn’t say what you think it said or what the media and politicians said it said.
So, yes, the vaccines could be magically effective. But you only have low quality evidence that doesn’t even really show that.
We do whoever, have extensive high quality evidence showing the effectiveness of Ivermectin.
Re: Re: Re:20
THREE HUNDRED FIFTEEN COMMENTS.
This is on Page 4 of Techdirt, going on one week since publication and much of the community has moved on a long time ago.
This compulsion of yours to be contrary and Reply. To. Every. Damn. Thing. is sick. At this point, you are certifiable.
[Next: Beeze proves my point of compulsively Replying. To. Every. Damn. Thing. and replies to this damn thing, doing a smartest-man-in-the-room bit, and missing the point of having no self-awareness.]
Re: Re: Re:21 Censorship be like
You have been posting nothing but B.S. and replying repeatedly with not a constructive argument in sight.
What a joke you are.
You can’t even defend your own claims with anything but memes and insult.
What a joke.
This is what censorship does to your brain. Just pithy, shallow insults. Every time you raise an actual issue it turns out to be either you not understanding the material or outright lies.
And then when you are called out on it you respond with memes, insults or the next set of lies.
Re: Re: Re:22
[Projects facts contrary to copious evidence]
Re: Re: Re:23 It's a bit
Oh, he’s projecting all right.
[Redacted] has avowed multiple times a disbelief in fact-truths and objective rationality.
Nothing you say will move him. If you step back, you will see patterns to his discourse and learn that [redacted] has mimicked the postures, gestures and maneuvers of intelligent people but lacks self-awareness and self-discipline. [Redacted] makes easy, unforced errors in logical fallacies and takes your bait the way a hungry shark reacts to chum.
He’s neither looking for debate nor is he especially intelligent. The appearance of intelligence indicates bad faith.
His arguments are a performance of intelligence, not reason intuited as such. [Redacted] is committed to his bit.
Re: Re: Re:12
[Hallucinates facts not in evidence]
Re: Re: Re:13
Toom, try singing Nicki Minaj at Beeze. It kept him away for about 48 hours and he stops replying.
Re:
How about “Jesus is real”?
You are free to disagree with all the things you listed. But the platform should not be silencing people who believe otherwise. They should be able to post their videos, and you should be able to post your videos. You don’t like what other people say? Too bad.
Re: Re:
No shirt, no shoes – no service
It is like this in most restaurants, I always assumed it was due to insurance rates – idk.
Just imagine trying to run a restaurant and people stroll in naked.
Re: Re: Re:
I always did wonder why the “no shirt no shoes no service” sign left off “no pants” and “no underwear”. 😉
Re: Re:
YouTube is not the only platform where you can post videos, may I suggest you try Rumble, where you might find a community where you fit in.
Platforms should not be in the business of policing content for accuracy. If someone wants to dispute the statements of a video, they can comment on it or post their own rebuttal. Having one “super commenter” who gets to silence things they don’t like is poison for freedom of thought.
Re:
Property owners can police their property as they see fit in almost any case.
If you don’t like it, start your own media-site.
Re: Re:
They can. But they shouldn’t.
Re: Re: Re:
They are in the business of making money, any decision they make will reflect that – so why should they give up that control and possible make less money? Because some stupid asshole thinks the election was stolen? Pfft.
Re: Re: Re:
And if they didn’t, they wouldn’t have a viable business model. Nor would any website that hosts UGC. Unmoderated sites are always overrun by assholes who repel most other users and advertisers. What you want is actually just a naïve utopian fantasy and you sound completely unserious by advocating for it.
Re: Re: Re:
What do you really want, a Web with a few extremist sites overrun by arseholes, and a silenced majority so that you can claim to represent society?
Re:
And yet there’s never been more ways to share moronic takes with the masses.
It’s almost as if a platform moderating the content people post on it doesn’t actually inhibit what you’re suggesting it inhibits.
Re:
Indeed, in all of history nothing has been more hostile to the very concept of free speech like the twin ideas of private property and the ability of owners to control who uses said property.
Re:
“Platforms should not be in the business of policing content for accuracy. If someone wants to dispute the statements of a video, they can comment on it or post their own rebuttal. Having one “super commenter” who gets to silence things they don’t like is poison for freedom of thought.”
Can I come over tomorrow and post political signs in your front yard? If you do not agree with my signs you can simply make your own signs and put them in your front yard too. Sounds cool huh?
Re:
“Platforms should not be in the business of policing content for accuracy.”
Why?
I suggest that the NOAA website, for example, would be well within their bounds when/if they were to dispute sharpie modifications to their graphic depictions of hurricane data and predictions.
Don't Forget
Don’t Forget YouTube is not only video sharing platform, TikTok And Tumblr are nipping at heels.
A much simpler reason: if Trump wins legitimately, the Democrats want to whine about it being ‘stolen’ and not have their content removed.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
The other take
YouTube, like many Americans; gave up on convincing the 1% who think the actual voting was rigged.
With a mountain of evidence showing the media rigged all information, there is no evidence of actual voting fraud beyond the same level of dead and illegal voting that exists in every election.
The factual evidence shows that media companies hid every story that was detrimental to Biden. That they sensationalised every minor detail about President Trump.
Rightfully, YouTube doesn’t want to be classed into the former category moving forward.
Re:
Yeah sure, whatever
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Biden was unhealthy during the campaign. He’s a disaster now. The media knew this. They spent time with him.
Biden’s son had a laptop with evidence of foreign dealings across the entire family the media knew this. One he apparently forgot about in a state of perpetual delirium
They ignored it.
Biden couldn’t remember major facts about his time as vice president. And filled them I. With fantasy. The media ignores it.
But Russia Russia Russia. Blah.
YouTube has to walk a fine line. There may be a few thousand people who thing the actual voting was rigged. There’s over 150, million that believe that the media intentionally presented their completely fake narratives about both Trump and Biden
Re: Re: Re:
Hello Ivan,
How’s the weather in Moscow?
Re:
…hallucinated nobody mentally competent, ever.
Re:
The factual evidence shows that media companies hid every story that was detrimental to Biden. That they sensationalised every minor detail about President Trump.
How interesting…let me ask you, if it was so well hidden, how in the fucking fuck did all of you toads know about it for so long? Can you tell me that? Because I keep hearing this over and over again, but that Biden laptop shit is nothing new, is it? Perhaps people didn’t give it much credibility because of all the fucking lying that was done in the 4 years prior. That’s not Biden’s fault. Next time, elect someone who’s less full of shit maybe?
Have you ever bothered to consider that the real problem wasn’t that anything about Biden was actually hidden, but that Trump’s monumental fuck-up handling of Covid to the tune of 400,000 dead might have had something to do with him losing? Or the jobs lost and people displaced because of it?
Did you forget how ‘fun’ 2020 was?
Did you forget Trump was president that year?
You keep blaming Trump’s loss on the media instead of the fact that he’s an incompetent douche, who wouldn’t listen to anyone but other incompetent douches. And 400,000 dead on his watch isn’t some ‘minor detail’ – it’s an epic fuckup, and the perfect example of what happens when idiots elect an idiot.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Insults don't help your case
Because we took the trouble to go out of our way to inform ourselves.
That’s not the question though. The question is: Why didn’t you?
Re: Re: Re:
Because we took the trouble to go out of our way to inform ourselves.
Right – it wasn’t hidden at all. Rudy was talking about it, the blind guy who forensically fucked up the drive was talking about it, all of the Trump simps were talking about it, and yet you people keep trying to say “but it wuz hiddun…”
Being deliberately obtuse isn’t going to work with me. I’m just going to assume you’re a fucking idiot.
The question is: Why didn’t you?
What makes you think I didn’t? I simply thought that if Trump in all his ‘stable genius-ness’ didn’t think it was worthwhile to prosecute right away, why should I fucking care?
Why his Justice Dept. was just sitting around with their fingers in their ass isn’t a question for me. That’s one for the genius and his minions. It’s not like you need the media to launch an investigation and indict someone, amirite?
Maybe instead of pondering 2+2 so much, you should think about why someone like Trump was so impotent as president.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2 You have it backwards
I don’t think you understand how any of this works.
Claims like Rudy’s are honey-traps designed to discredit dissent. Not very much unlike the “Thousand Blossom Campaigns”.
The US security apparatus are past masters of the art, but that doesn’t mean you have to fall for it.
What always lurks beneath is a inversion of the burden of proof: The reason why elections need to fully auditable is because the incentive for corruption is so vast.
People who run an election cannot assume it is free and fair election and insist on proof of unfairness. The burden is to prove fairness.
If you actually followed the cases that followed with any level of integrity or sincerity you would know that the the legal presumption was fairness (laches, mootness and standing), which is de facto proof of a flawed election.
Re: Re: Re:3
Shoehorning.
Shorter Beeze: The burden of proof of the accuser is evidence of the inherent unfairness of the system!
Another two-fer: A courtier’s reply and gaslighting.
The 2020 election was the most intensively observed at every step of the process — pre-election, the election, the vote count, the post-election litigation, the insurrection and the media coverage thereof — in U.S. history.
Since you maintain this posture of a contrarian deep thinker, you should have a modicum of self-awareness that everyone else has followed the 2020 election and its aftermath. Everyone who is not you would know if they followed the 2020 election, and don’t need you to interpret our lived experiences for us.
Since you chose to put these words out there for Techdirt to see, you’ve gaslighted us.
But, how would you know? And If you did know this, why didn’t you put on your law-talkin’-guy suit and represent Trump in court?
Trump’s entire legal strategy was to flood the courts with shit, hope that a sympathetic judge gives him a ruling, or hope an appeal will reach the Supreme Court so they could intervene in the election. Out of the 61 cases that were dismissed or lost by Trump’s team, what would you have argued differently?
Remember: The 2020 election is one where almost all of the discovery work has been done for you. You have 158 million ballots at your disposal. You can subpoena secretaries of state and local elections officials, all of whom have to attest to the accuracy of their tallies.
You have a lot to work with. Even if you wish to explain the facts away, you need to make an extraordinary claim as to why the evidence before everyone’s eyes and ears has to be disregarded.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
This doesn’t make sense. Rephrase.
So what?
I don’t understand why you think that is in any way relevant.
The only thing that matters is what was NOT observed, and if you can’t understand the difference I can offer you nothing but pity.
How many of those cases were addressed on the merits?
Re: Re: Re:5
The only thing that matters is what was NOT observed, and if you can’t understand the difference I can offer you nothing but pity.
Thanks for clearing that up. So then you just need to produce what was not observed so we can see the ‘evidence’ you have.
How many of those cases were addressed on the merits?
And what merits would those be exactly? Funny how I don’t recall seeing any of those ‘merits’ apart from that jackass Kraken making a fool out of herself. The arguments they’re making at their sanctions trials are interesting as hell, tho…
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6 Schroedinger's cat
Again, you have this backwards.
It is always the person who has the power over access to the evidence who has the burden to produce.
The question, which was never addressed by courts, was if evidence of fairness was ever provided. So that’s things like checking signatures, making sure that machines were not tampered with, and that only legally cast votes compliant with rules set out by respective legislatures were counted.
There is no way that anyone outside the system can have legal access to that information, so demanding that outsiders provide that sort of evidence is not proper, even if it was done with noble intentions.
I challenge you to find me a single court case brought by Trump’s own people (which, as far as I’m aware, that excludes the Powell people, by the way) that substantively addressed these issues on the merits as opposed to resorting to legal technicalities like laches, mootness and standing to avoid dealing with them.
If you can do that, I am more than happy to discuss it in detail.
Re: Re: Re:7
Again, you have this backwards.
Oh, this should be good…
It is always the person who has the power over access to the evidence who has the burden to produce.
So what exactly do I have backwards apart from my opinion of the person I’m responding to? The results aren’t ‘fair’ to you because trump lost. Badly.
That has nothing to do with ‘fairness.’ It has everything to do with running a clusterfuck of a candidate who spent the last year of his term making sure as many of his own constituents died in some of the most comical ways possible.
I don’t see how you doubting the vaccine, masks, or deciding horse dewormer was a more effective option, despite the incontinence should be factored in somehow. Or telling the old people not to use mail-in ballots or that it was fixed anyways should somehow get you some kind of grading curve.
Life is harder when you’re stupid, and boy your voting block sure has a lot of dumb fucking people in it. That might not seem fair to you – but if that’s the kind of people you attract, perhaps you should consider why before asking teacher to make sure the entire class passes the exam. That’s how we ended up with so many of you mental midgets in the first place.
I challenge you to find me a single court case brought by Trump’s own people (which, as far as I’m aware, that excludes the Powell people, by the way) that substantively addressed these issues on the merits as opposed to resorting to legal technicalities like laches, mootness and standing to avoid dealing with them.
That’s pretty fucking funny. I’d expect that if his lawyers had anything of substance, they would have filed it their fucking selves. Isn’t that what lawyers are paid to do?
Are you telling me a guy with his money, who hires the ‘best people’ would make technical errors 61 times, and not refile them in state courts instead?
I think you mentioned something about a bridge? Yeah, I know why you’re selling…you already paid for it.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:8 Strawman
You literally quote what I said and then without even blushing claim I said something completely different.
US elections were unfair long before Trump came along. Democrats used to be on the van on this issue.
They were unfair because: “the person who has the power over access to the evidence who has the burden to produce”
Machine voting fails this test in practice. Almost like it was designed to do exactly that.
Third world countries can’t get this concept and sort it out, why not Americans?
Re: Re: Re:8
Why can we not return to 2018 and BOTH sides discuss election issues.
Would you like the links to Clinton, Biden, and a Obama talking about election issues??
Look, the number of people who think the election was stolen by voting machines is very very small.
But there were real issues.
States and towns closed voting locations, in many cases with no prior warning.
Some states made it very difficult to vote in person even with open polling locations.
And vote by mail was a cluster. From people not having a clue how to use them… to lost mail. Want to count how many bags of ballots were found dumped in random places? Parking lots, gutters, in a carrier’s house?
And the watchers, I have a serious problem with this. Fuck covid regulations. You have a JOB! You count votes. The watcher is close enough to read the ballot.
If either are uncomfortable with the space issue you resign your position before the count starts. Allow a person who puts the country first to take your place.
Re: Re: Re:5 Observation without milk is not the same as observation without cream
Ah, the ol’ Slavoj Zizek doctrine.
It might be too late to reopen the 2020 election, but Kari Lake might want to give you a call. She’s still trying to bend reality her way 🤣
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6 Not actually an argument
That’s not an argument and you are slinging it out there because you know I’m right and have nothing of substance to offer in rebuttal.
Do yourself a favour and tot up the number of times ad hominem gets used in this discussion against opponents of censorship as the sole argument.
That’s the problem with censorship. A wise man steel man’s his opponent’s argument. The fool limits his inputs.
‘Twas always thus.
Re: Re: Re:7
I wasn’t offering an argument. I was mocking you.
I’m dismayed you didn’t pick up on the Zizek joke.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:8 I know you're not offering an argument
I am also sure that if you actually had an argument, you would, but you don’t, because you never did your own research like you were supposed to as a functional adult (presumably) human being.
As for the Zizek joke, I don’t follow him close enough to be aware of what you are referring to specifically. He says a lot of things and has several positions on several things, some of which I agree with and some of which I don’t.
Try to be more specific.
Re: Re: Re:9 Now THAT's a bold statement
I’m not trying to persuade you or anyone. I’m no longer having fun at your expense.
See the bold statement? I’m saying the quiet part out loud.
You are tedious, Beeze.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:10 Simple
Then stop replying
Re: Re: Re:11
After you.
Re: Re: Re:3
I don’t think you understand how any of this works.
No, I don’t think you understand what the fuck the word ‘hidden’ means.
Claims like Rudy’s are honey-traps designed to discredit dissent.
Ahh yes, absent anything significant means there must be a backstory, because a washed-up cousin-fucking drunk just has to have something up his sleeve while waiting for disbarment.
The burden is to prove fairness.
And can you clear up if that is done by ‘finding’ votes, sending a phony slate of electors, or just telling the VP to just unilaterally throw it out?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4 Misrepresentation
That is a gross misrepresentation of what happened on that on that call and I think you know it.
It’s really not a good look.
You mean like what the Democrats wanted to do when Trump was first elected?
At least half a dozen stood up and ask for exactly that.
Re: Re: Re:5
That is a gross misrepresentation of what happened on that on that call and I think you know it.
Well, if you want, I can post the fucking transcript and then we can discuss the meaning of the word ‘misrepresentation.’
You mean like what the Democrats wanted to do when Trump was first elected?
So is it sound legal theory or not?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6 Go ahead
Post it.
You will see.
There was never any hint of anything improper.
The legal standard (which Obama used to win his Senate race) has always been to find more invalid votes than the victory margin. That doesn’t mean “manufacture”.
It means you don’t have to identify every invalid vote.
Re: Re: Re:7
There was never any hint of anything improper.
It appears a Georgia grand jury disagrees with that, but we’ll see. He’s already staring at two criminal indictments, notwithstanding the ass reaming he’s getting in NY.
It means you don’t have to identify every invalid vote.
If we’re not identifying every invalid vote, where an invalid vote is assumed to be favorable to trump, I fail to see where he would accumulate more votes than his opponent. Maybe lay off the horseshit math – it’s fucking up the simple stuff for you.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:8 Ham sandwich
A grand jury can indict a ham sandwich.
Why are you assuming invalid votes are favourable to Trump?
Take Trump out of it because you are thinking emotionally rather than rationally.
The principle that has been used in election contests is that if there are more invalid votes than the margin of victory, the election is thrown out and re-run.
The specifics may vary from state to state or case by case, but it’s not hard to see that if there were 100 extra invalid votes counted for candidate A who won by 99 votes, then removing those votes invalidates the victory. Of course if there were also invalid votes for the other that were counted it would change the margin, but that can’t be resolved without assessing individual votes cast for validity (and eligibility).
It’s really not hard to understand. You are trying not to understand because politics is clouding your judgment.
This is not about Trump, except by pure happenstance. These issues predate Trump, and failing to address them has created a terrible precedent for America. As a non-American, this really concerns me because America basically prints the world’s money. I don’t care who runs the joint, but it can’t be run like that.
Re: Re: Re:8
It’s impossible.
An invalid vote is tallied as spoiled and has zero value toward the overall election count.
The ballots themselves are never literally thrown out for this reason. A candidate’s representatives or lawyers can demand election officials to produce the ballot. The reason for spoilage should be evident. Usually, it’s because a voter left a section blank, didn’t follow instructions, like choosing two people when the instructions said choose one, or in the fill-in-the-bubble ballots someone marked with an X or check mark instead.
It’s pretty hard to unspoil a ballot, but not impossible. If a fill-in-the-bubble ballot were disqualified because the voter shaded outside of the lines, or a bubble had like 10% unfilled, it could be counted in the tally if the voter’s intent was clear. Generally, though, these are a very small percentage of spoiled ballots. And spoiled ballots are a very small percentage of correctly cast ballots.
Re: Re: Re:9 How would you know?
How do you tally invalid votes if you are not checking votes properly for validity?
How do you ensure voter rolls are correct if you are not requiring voter ID and mailing ballots to every Tom, Dick and long-deceased Harry?
You are grossly misrepresenting a HUGE problem and using a massively simplified wishful thinking description of what happened.
Democrats are fooling no-one but themselves.
Re: Re: Re:10 JAQ-off
Prove your suspicions. Burden of proof is on the accuser. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
“Just asking questions” is not proof and is a tacit concession you’re not going to find any. Performances of “just asking questions” are called JAQing off.
More than two questions, and you’re playing with yourself.
Re: Re: Re:11 You don't understand the burden of proof
When you actively censor information that you have direct control over, the adverse inference applies.
You don’t have to prove that a Ponzi scheme is going to steal your money. You don’t have to prove that a stage magician is not actually manipulating aether. You don’t have to prove that politicians have a tendency to be corrupt. You don’t have to prove that political operatives favour their party.
This is not really difficult things to understand if you approach the issue with even a sliver of integrity.
But you don’t care, do you. Because you don’t care about anything but politics.
https://disinherited.com/probate-litigation/an-adverse-inference/
Re: Re: Re:12
Remember how I say you Reply. To. Every. Damn. Thing?
What do you do here?
Dude, I have long ago stopped looking at what you say and analyze you as a performance. This was from yesterday, with boldface to emphasize what is going on here:
Beeze also has another character besides SGITR. It’s Civil Liberties Crusader, performed as the child on the mound as shown above. The favorite opponent he likes to shadowbox with is Censorship. (Seriously: Do a Ctrl+F for censorship and count how many times Beeze has uttered it. Since Beeze isn’t a performer skilled enough to pull off irony, I will remind you that there are THREE HUNDRED FIFTEEN POSTS in a week old article.) But Beeze’s bit will work with anything within the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, heck even the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist papers or correspondence from the Founding Fathers. It’s like the trope from old-time movies or classic animation where a woman is tied to rails and, oh noez!, only Beeze can heroically arrive to save the damsel in distress before the speeding locomotive trammels the origins of our republic.
And, much like Umberto Eco, Bobson Dugnutt is the sort of person that needs to be read in full context to understand what he is saying.
This is the child on the mound:
Re: Re: Re:13 Dude are you okay?
Stop the rhetorical B.S.
Let’s recap:
This entire thread, following the article, is about censorship and the justifications for it.
According to Bobson, censorship is justified because people lie. And Bobson thinks he has access to objective truth, which is how he can know when other people are lying. Bobson doesn’t need to engage in conversation, because, since he has access to objective truth, anyone who disagrees with him is guilty of Bullshit.
Where am I wrong?
Quit the bullshittery and defend your thesis.
Re: Re: Re:14 If 2 + 2 isn
Point. Proved.
Re: Re: Re:15 You mean that raving ramble had a point
Dude, you don’t have a point.
I’m starting to think to you might not all well up there.
I’ve giving you an out: What part, if any, of my characterization do you disagree with?
In the alternative, just answer with more frothing incoherence and then we’ll all know to disregard you.
Re: Re: Re:16 Encore, Nicki Minaj!
Pimpin’ ain’t slick and they ain’t sayin’ nothing
A hundred of ya suckers can’t tell me nothing
I Beeze in the trap, bee-Beeze in the trap
I Beeze in the trap, bee-Beeze in the trap
— Nicki Minaj and 2 Chainz (edited version)
Considering how much difficulty YouTube has policing non-political disinformation that is actually illegal or potentially deadly, I really can’t fault them for walking away from this one.
Personally, I’d love it if they’d remove all videos that present something as real that was provably faked, but moderation at these volumes is always going to be automated, so is always going to be skewed.
The worry, of course, is that those peddling disinfo can build up quite a corpus of material with fakery all the way down if left totally unchecked. And then people in powerful positions can point to all this material at some later date and say “We’re doing this thing because of all this evidence that people should have known about and is documented going back YEARS….” when in fact, there is no evidence at all, just mountains of fiction and misdirection.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
I find it almost funny how self defeating some far-left voters can actually be. You are so hooked on your lest we forget page of nonsense. A list of whatever’s and not-his-fault peppered with the rare negative actions of the president.
How much of the first term Biden reversals are, being reimplemented.
The border? Looks like Biden changed his mind (too long) and decided maybe security is a good thing.
Separation, oh, wow. Reconsidering that too.ok at the NYT review of the child labor issues going on. As well as the BW report of sex trafficking.
You bitch about Covid? Let’s see how that works. Fuck ups? We had both New York and Washington sending Covid positive seniors from the hospital to Senior living. An action that directly lead to thousands of deaths. I remind you Trump didn’t do that: Democrat governors and legislators did that.
How did the extremest reactions work out? The highest death rates are in blue cities. Ones that took extreme and detrimental actions. New York, Philadelphia, LA, Chicago.
Funny how that worked out? Cities that forced large congregations of infected to huddle together had higher rates? Wow.
Mind you cities like Orlando generally stayed open and active including amusements. Yet had rates of infection well below national averages.
More people died in new york nursing homes than the entire state of Florida.
This country was built on freedom and you have the freedom to protect yourself. Or not. You did not then or now have the right to force someone to use a relatively useless piece of paper to cover their mouth.
Yet the cities and states that forced that have the highest death rates.
What he did do, despite his personality flaws, will be looked upon in the future with dignity.
He brokered a continuing and expanding peace agreement in the Arab league with Isreal.
He attempted to formalise relations with North Korea. An act that could have helped reduce suffering if it worked out. (See Nixon/China)
He maintained a strong hand on Russia that kept them from invading their neighbours.
He revoked the Iran bounty deal. Something the country didn’t live up to on their end.
He reset trade agreements fairly. He spearheaded the largest rise in stock and economic rates in history through reasonable policy.
What has Biden done that is beneficial to this country? Feel free to take your time. I can’t think of anything
It was never Trump’s justice department you fool. It is supposed to act independently though it has long been Obama’s justice dpt.
Funny how now that Biden is clearly a lame duck president investigations are moving forward.
I won’t kowtow at trumps feet but he was far from the worst president.
Biden on the other hand?
Re: Re:
..hallucinated nobody mentally competent, ever.
Re: Re: On the nose?
Operation Warp Speed gave us a true marvel of modern medicine, the COVID-19 vaccine.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re: Irrelevant
I don’t realize how poorly your comments reflect on you.
The fact that Trump initiate warp-speed is neither here nor there.
Remember how they waited until after the election to release the results of the preliminary study in the middle of a public massive health emergency?
You don’t think there’s anything odd about that at all?
Re: Re: Re:2 Here AND There
Au contraire. Operation Warp Speed is here, there and everywhere.
See, the thing I like to do is break down concepts so simply to leave you no room to misinterpret my statements. Yet I know you’re going to do so anyway, in a pattern that goes like: 1. Take my words and argue they also mean the exact opposite of plain English meaning and intention, 2. Do your little Postmodernist Brain Genius performance and give a tendentious bailey so no one can understand what the hell you’re saying, 3. Retreat to your motte, 4. Return to the bailey with a Courtier’s Reply and/or Gaslighting, 5. Make some claim to some obscure philosopher or deeply theoretical field of knowledge that you hope will befuddle your interlocutor, then 6. Drop the charade of pseudointellectualism and shitpost.
That, by the way, is bait.
Now back to the meaning and intention behind Operation Warp Speed. I shitpost it because it’s the one achievement that Donald Trump can take credit for and also the one where pearls are cast before maga swine. The Republicans have done masterfully in undermining what could have been Donald Trump’s only positive contribution to history and humanity. Anti-vaxxers and anti-evidence-based-medicine subcultures are your tribe.
Sincerely,
Vaxxed and boosted
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3 Not surprised
Not surprised.
You know PEG crosses the blood brain barrier, right? That’s one of the reasons it’s used.
We noticed.
No. You’re statements are perfectly clear. And wrong.
Correct me if I’m misinterpreting you:
You think that you can the claim the right to censor others because you believe that there is an objective way to establish truth and that you (and people you like) have exclusive rights to that method, or use it in a way that your enemies refuse to.
If that’s what you think, I’m trying to explain to you that you are objectively (by logical necessity), aggressively, and pigheadedly wrong on all counts and that you are denying the very science that enabled the modern computer you are using to send your shitposts on.
Stop being so smug about being wrong.
Re: Re: Re:4
You think that you can the claim the right to censor others because you believe that there is an objective way to establish truth and that you (and people you like) have exclusive rights to that method, or use it in a way that your enemies refuse to.
It would be one thing if you just ate your aquarium cleaner and dropped dead. That I’d be fine with. If your assholes fell out from whatever you bought from the Tractor Supply, I’d be fine with that too. Just follow it all the way through why don’t you?
Why take up a ventilator for a “cold” that’s a hoax, that you fixed with your home remedies that are fully tested to your satisfaction, and peer reviewed by every fucking peer worth a fuck?
I don’t understand why at the last minute, so many of you went to hospitals, begging for a ventilator instead of just dropping dead like the proud patriots you claimed to be?
Where’s the dedication to your beliefs?
Re: Re: Re:5 Aquarium story was a hoax.
You the aquarium cleaner story is a lot more interesting than CNN reported, don’t you?
From memory it was a Democrat donor lady who fed the stuff to her husband, who she had tried to kill on several previous occasions. And it wasn’t hydroxychloroquine.
This was shortly before the Surgisphere scandal, which should have been more than enough to alert you to a bigger issue.
HCQ has many, independent, peer-reviewed gold standard studies overwhelmingly supporting it’s effectiveness (unlike ventilators or the vaccines).
https://c19hcq.org/meta.html
Re: Re: Re:6
Yeah, I liked that one. It would have been ‘a perfect crime’ had she not ingested enough of it herself.
Re: Re: Re:
Add to that the peace agreements with UAN members and the continued stability of those agreements.
And from a more historical perspective, he made the right call engaging North Korea.
Nixon set the groundwork with China giving U.S. 40 years of limited concern. Relations with Russia gave us 25 years not worried about “the bomb”.
Somewhere along the way people will figure out sanctions and restrictions so NOTHING to hurt a government and everything to hurt the population.
There are methods that could reduce tensions with NK, Iran, Russia,
But on the latter I won’t expect any progress under Biden. Not with the Clinton and Biden families so deeply tied to Ukrainian money.
Objective Truth: 2+2=4
Nutters: “But if you hold it up to the light just so and squint at sunset it Could look like an eight! Alternative Truth!
Everyone: Dude? Just… no. Please shut up.
Nutters: You’re enacting Violence Against Me!”
Are you fucking Serious?
I despise repeating myself but here we go…
Everyone: Dude? Just… no. Please shut up.
Re: See the Alt-Right Playbook
To understand why nutters are this way, you have to set aside the notion that there’s something wrong with the nutters’ brain.
They are not defective or mentally ill. They have full agency and believe what they do willfully.
Ian Danskin created the YouTube channel Innuendo Studios and has a series of videos called “The Alt-Right Playbook.” Keep in mind that the alt-right is numerically very small, but the tactics of their conversation are mainstream across the American right wing.
The relevant behaviors the nutters are engaging in are in the videos “Control the Conversation” (about 11 minutes long) and “Never Play Defense” (about 12 minutes). The mistake is believing that nutters are ignorant, misinformed or suffering some kind of mental defect. They have a different worldview, a different set of values, often hostile to yours and have completely different intentions.
Re:
2+2=22
But that’s besides the point. 😉
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Except
Except 2+2=4 is generally not considered to be objectively true by anyone with a passing understanding of the philosophy of mathematics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principia_Mathematica
Re: Re:
Ooh, a double-fallacy! A motte and bailey in which the motte is built of a courtier’s reply.
Tres Foucauldian, mon ami.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re: It is not controversial that 2+2=4 is not objectively true
Per Wikipedia, motte and Bailey: “The arguer advances the controversial position, but when challenged, they insist that they are only advancing the more modest position”.
My interlocuter claimed the right to call other people crazy conspiracy theorists on the basis of the claim that 2+2=4 is objectively wrong.
You don’t get to call other people nutters if you continue to advance problem the most thoroughly debunked claim in probably the history of humanity.
2+2=4 is not “objectively true” in any sense. It is the very essence of a socially constructed truth or truth by convention.
You really don’t get to climb on a pissy high-horse about misinformation if you can’t even get this right. Go back to school.
Re: Re: Re:2 Anatomy of a self-own
The bailey:
The motte:
The interlocuter would likely be Elfin in the June 7, 2023 post at 1:05 p.m.
Interpreting your statement literally, Elfin did not claim a right. It was a metaphor or allegory involving a fictional conversation. It is open to interpretation to what Elfin meant and intended, as it was left unstated.
And yes, disagreeing with 2+2=4 is objectively wrong.
If humans have a shared understanding of the world, like an arrangement for counting, a system of symbols associated with units, and an ability to combine them to produce formulas, it is objective. The system of numerals and mathematical principles were here before we were born, and it’s safe to say that they’ll likely be here after we die. They’ll have a property of permanence independent of human agency.
Beeze, sensing that the motte claim was a settled understanding that was merely misinterpreted, feels it is safe to return to the bailey:
Your bailey is that humanity is doing counting and arithmetic all wrong and that 2+2=4 is to be understood as proof of wrongness.
By rejecting the motte and bailey, you became the motte and bailey.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re: Motte and Bailey
The controversial claim here is that 2+2=4 is objectively true, which is a false claim.
When challenged, the retreat to the bailey is to say, “Oh, so you believe that aliens abducted the twin towers”.
To be clear, none of this has anything whatsoever to do with Foucault.
Per Wikipedia on the Courtier’s reply: “A key element of a courtier’s reply, which distinguishes it from an otherwise valid response that incidentally points out the critic’s lack of established authority on the topic, is that the respondent never shows how the work of these overlooked experts invalidates the arguments that were advanced by the critic.”
I, in contrast, have shown that anyone who believes that “2+2=4 is objectively true” is not qualified to opine on misinformation: Because it is probably the most resoundingly, thoroughly, and conclusively debunked proposition in human history.
Making that claim marks you as as person who has put no thought into what knowledge is or how it operates at all.
Re: Re: Re:2 Fanny by gaslight
Rather than blockquote your last post, I can summarize the entirety of it as gaslighting.
Re: Re: Re:3
You place yourself with that term, gaslighting.
There is a very small group of shared idea politically active protest that uses that word in regular conversation.
Is interesting today how certain terminology can identify a person’s beliefs.
But on the approach to 2+2 when you get past the 100 level of study you begin to understand that addition is only one tiny practice in mathematics.
The congregation of two pairs does not necessarily make for a group of four 2+2 ≈4 is more accurate as
2+2=1+3 if one is simply a bystander. There is also no assurance the original two or new two remain bonded. You may wind up with 1A 1B 1C and 1D
Re: Re: Re:4
For one, I am not in the group. Two, maybe just maybe that word is used in casual conversation is because they are accurately describing what their enemies are doing to them.
Courtier’s reply.
The argument of the existence of deeper levels of mathematics, and the debates within it, are beside the point. The strongest arguments are also advanced by people steeped with the knowledge and training of deeper mathematics to argue that point.
Very few people possess this knowledge, or know the folkways of scholars. It’s not secret knowledge, but it does require rigor.
However, we expect mastery of counting and simple arithmetic in childhood, because in order to understand the world 2+2=4 is fundamental and necessary to make sense of it. Simple arithmetic and integers are also sufficient for understanding the world, because it’s knowledge we use in our everyday interactions, whereas the exceptions to the rule you propose only come up in specialized contexts.
Deeper knowledge of math does not negate the simple arithmetic of 2+2=4.
Re: Re: Re:5
True, but basic sociology and psychology often do.
Re: Re: Re:6
Stop confusing tendentiousness with genius.
Bobson explains your magic trick: All sociology and psychology use the same numeral and basic arithmetic systems as mathematics to build upon the more complex systems they use (e.g., statistics).
What do mathematics, sociology and psychology have in common? These symbols: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 + – (X or *) ( /, the computing equivalent of the division symbol of a line with a dot on top and bottom of it) ^, have identical meanings, functions and orders. There are also Roman equivalents of these numerical values expressed in letters that are still used (i.e., I V X L C D M) and a system of math used to represent certain numbers (i.e., IV is the equivalent of the Arabic symbol 4, or “1 less than 5”; IIII would be formally incorrect but numerically correct). These are used in enumerating introductory text pages or outlines.
No academic field claims a special arrangement of numbers. Psychologists don’t assert, “Actually, our numerical order is 2 5 7 0 1 9 4 3 6 and our addition symbol is K and our subtraction symbol is &.”
Even for the higher-level mathematics used in these fields, these are only possible once the first principles of counting, order and arithmetic are settled.
Psychology and sociology don’t declare these fundamentals of numbers null or bullshit. (Those of a postmodernist bent do, but in a very motte-and-bailey way.)
Re: Re: Re:7 Basic misunderstandings
What you are offering is pure Bullshit under Frankfurt’s definition.
The first and second symbol “2” don’t even belong to the same CLASS of things in the statement “2*2=4”. They are different sorts of numbers that refer to different sorts of thing.
The philosophy of mathematics is rich and interesting and debunks most of the claims made in the thread. Just stop spreading bullshit and start reading up about it.
There are distinctions here that actually matter. A lot. And you are just glossing over them because you don’t like Donald Trump.
Grow up.
Re: Re: Re:8
Courtier’s reply.
The existence of mathematics, philosophy, or philosophy of mathematics is not in doubt.
Do you require immersion in the philosophy of mathematics before you begin to count or do basic arithmetic? Then the whole world has been getting math all wrong. Is that what you wish?
Customarily, math has been taught the other way around. Children are exposed to the concept of numbers by counting, then arithmetic, then fractions, decimals, irrational numbers, then more complex systems of algebra, geometry, trigonometry, calculus, etc. In short, the practice of mathematics is learned well before the theoretical aspects.
There are many more people in the world with a familiarity with the practical aspects of math than they are the theoretical aspects of it.
You advocate a gnostic posture that the people with this deeper theoretical knowledge of mathematics know what’s really going on and the theory invalidates math as practiced in the world today.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:9 Courtier's reply
If to if you say the Earth is flat and I point you to Eratosthenes, would that also be a “courtier’s reply”?
At best the courtier’s reply is a half-baked informal fallacy.
It is a defence to me pointing out that there are rigorous formal proofs that show that your notions of how maths work is absolutely wrong and that you should really be familiar with this stuff if you would like to comment on the matter.
It’s especially rich coming from someone who quotes Frankfurt’s theory of Bullshit, because the two ideas direct conflict.
On a point of order, I don’t even think the courtier’s reply is a legitimate and Dawkins is as guilty of Frankfurt’s Bullshit as anyone I’m aware of.
Re: Re: Re:10
You just came here to namecheck Eratosthenes, right?
Re: Re: Re:7
I simply point out that you have lost base.
I’m not denying that basic arithmetic tendencies are important. I state that they are inappropriate to apply to discussion that is, entirely, a study of the mind.
2+2=4 is exactly what is wrong with the processes of our republic.
See, many here are dead set on 1 or the other. You’re democrats or republicans. Yet for a large population here, neither is true. How I lean at any given point in time, in practicing my independent vote, depends on which candidate supports more things that are important to me. That is the method of most voters. Dozens of polls done the last 12 months have the number of pure party line voters under 30%.
So much for your 1+1
Re: Re: Re:8
In short, threadjacking. A discussion no one really asked for, didn’t shed light on anything, and just created an infinite regress of obscurantist tedium
Free speech! amirite?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:9 Oh, but it does
It just once again demonstrate that people who claim the power to censor cannot support their claims and aggressively persist in using faulty definitions.
Re: Re: Re:10 Your argument is invalid
TWO HUNDRED TWENTY FIVE POSTS.
Can you please hand over the word “censorship” so we can take it into reality, who has sole custody of it? We’ve deemed you an unfit guardian a danger to yourself and others.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:11 Did I say this site, specifically, was currently engaging in censorship
No, I don’t believe I did.
Although, forum sliding is a thing, you know.
Re: Re: Re:12 Every accusation is a confession
See subject line.
Re: Re: Re:9
It’s not called thread jacking. It’s called looping the discussion.
1+1 rarely equals 2 in the real world beyond a few coins in your pocket. The election wasn’t stolen at the machines. Despite what President trump says.
It was stolen at the cable channel and the social platform. Fantastic stories about Trump, with little or no basis in fact, were given prime time discussion.
Yet, and I reference the comment earlier of if it was so hidden “how did you know?” The media across methods went out of its way to hide Biden’s serious physical and mental degradation.
As much as the media ignores it, anyone with either a medical background or experience with his problems knew the signs.
The media, and many in the progressive end of the D party, think 1+1= 2
There are less Republicans in this country than democrats. If every single Republican voted for Trump he would not have won the EC.
The fact was: l did Trump not have all the Republican votes in 16.
What he did do was win over enough independents on individual policies to take the win.
In 2020 his focus on religious concerns lost many of us independents.
So here is YouTube and your 1+1≠2
CNN lost dozens of reporters from 2019-2021. Their ratings tanked. They mad the partisan decision at the top to lie, or mis-direct.
They lost their independent voter viewership. A large chunk of their viewers.
They need those viewers. (the progressives are watching MSNBC).
YouTube has to be careful. Politics is not their program. Generally it’s a tiny sub percentage point.
In the real world people aren’t fed political material to any degree unless their search history dictates interest.
Bans are very public. It’s safer to just ignore the nonsense, not dragnet the real discussion, and let a few bits of crap survive.
CNN dumped 3 grating talking heads and their ratings are the highest they’ve been since 2018.
The fact is not lost on YouTube.
Re: Re: Re:10 Malice in wonderland
LostInLoDOS says:
Where have we seen this before?
“Through the Looking Glass” by Lewis Carroll
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:11 You are the one making up meanings to words
You are constantly using highly unique definitions for things like “truth” and then refusing to acknowledge it when the basic errors you are committing are pointed out to you.
LostInLoDOS is not thread jacking.
Re: Re: Re:12
You can’t point to a single instance of anyone but you doing that here.
Re: Re:
The above is just a bad form of appeal to authority which doesn’t fly here. May I suggest you take your ass somewhere else if you want to discuss the finer points of philosophy, because 2+2=4 is true for all practical purposes that matter.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re: What are you smoking?
This is absolutely hilarious.
You think 2+2=4 is not an appeal to authority but logic is?
This is just an absolutely spectacular piece of self delusion: If there is anything we can know with any kind of certainty and that has been established beyond any possible shadow of a doubt it is the fact that any claims more expressive than first order logic (i.e. claims of the kind 2+2=4) cannot be considered to be objectively true.
They are true by symbolic convention, and that’s it. We USE them to refer to “objective” reality by mutual consent, but they have no more reality than that. By logical necessity.
Re: Re: Re:2
You think it’s hilarious because you are kind of stupid and don’t understand context, you must be incredibly socially inept.
You held up Principia Mathematica as the arbiter of what is true which doesn’t actually fucking matter, because 2+2=4 is true for everything that actually matters, just like how everything else in daily life doesn’t revolve around epistemology.
It’s evident you don’t function well in social settings, perhaps start learning to behave like a normal person – or at least emulate one?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3 That's what you think?
Your comment reveals your ignorance on the matter.
I didn’t hold up Principia Mathematica as an arbiter of truth. The Principia didn’t claim that 2+2=4 is not objectively true.
In fact the Principia was an incomplete project designed to prove that mathematics could be reduced to logic, in which it would have been the case that “2+2=4” is objectively true.
As it stands, the project more or less failed, along with Hilbert’s program.
What prove that any such attempt must fail was Goedel, and subsequently Turing, von Neuman, Tarski (in the general sense) and Wittgenstein (first or last, depending on your stance regarding the Tractatus).
I mean, you could call appealing to logic itself as an “appeal to authority”, but there would be precious little left after. Certainly, mathematical claims cannot be stronger than logical ones.
I can explain it in detail, but I am not rewriting my thesis here. It would be far better if you could just take the time to inform yourself on the matter.
Veritassium did a decent breakdown for the layperson though, so perhaps start there: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeQX2HjkcNo
Pragmatically? Yes. By social construction? Yes. Subjectively? Yes.
Objectively? NO!
I don’t go to parties with people who think censorship is okay and morally okay, so I do rather well, thank you very much.
Perhaps you should reconsider the company you keep.
Re: Re: Re:4
You do not understand what they proved, and that was the limitations of proofs beyond simple logic. Further they did not claim arithmetic was was false, but rather that the limits of any proof system is that not all statement that can be made in a system can be proven as true or false within the system.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:5 Simple logic is not a lesser construct
I didn’t 2+2=4 is objectively false, I said it is not objectively true. In fact, I also said that it can be considered true as a social construction or pragmatically.
The broader discussion here is about the limits of a an epistemology that uses absolute (objective) truth values derived from empirical proofs to justify censorship.
I don’t think you fully grasp the implications of Goedel’s diagonalization. It means that every system that is more expressive (has more referential power) than first order (what you call “simple”) logic is either incomplete or inconsistent.
If it is inconsistent, then it is irrational, by the ex falso quodlibet. If it is incomplete then there are true statements that cannot be proven but which would render the system similarly irrational if included. Which, by extension, that any rational system of proofs is irrational when it is presented as a complete empirical explanation.
“I believe only things that can be proven” is an irrational position. No better than believing in a flat Earth.
That brings us to Popper, and why science the default valence in empirical contexts as false as a pragmatic matter, and why the urge to try to collect evidence to prove claim to be true is the very essence of pseudoscience.
I’m happy to explain in further detail, but I have to go right now and this comment is already long enough.
Re: Re: Re:4
Objectively? NO!
Will you look at the little shitheel trying to debate elementary school math, as if the meaning of the equation is somehow in question. You’re just another post-modernist twat feeding shit into ChatGPT to get some nonsense to shitpost here.
If you think basic addition is arbitrary, by all means – give it a shot when paying your bills or filing taxes. See if this horse shit flies when reality bitch slaps you.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:5 Thanks for ending that argument
Did you use “comment that makes me look like an idiot who has no interest in understanding anything” into ChatGPT?
Go away, little troll.
Re: Re: Re:6
Did you use “comment that makes me look like an idiot who has no interest in understanding anything” into ChatGPT?
Nope. Just exercising my free speech to point out what a fucking idiot I think you are for arguing about the sum of 2 and 2.
When you point out a practical, non-abstract use, that isn’t buried 20 levels deep into some obscure field of engineering, maybe I’ll give a fucking shit. But you’re an asshole troll spamming this thread with this fucking irrelevant bullshit that has zero to do with the topic of the article.
Here’s a little protip, fuckface – learn to read the room when you bring up this horseshit.
Have the day you deserve.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:7 The room
The room is filled with idiots who don’t know how to do their own research.
I know.
Don’t you realize that the point of arguing like this is to develop a deeper understanding of ignorance so that I can learn how to more effectively correct it?
It’s enough every now and again someone attempts to tackle an actual issue rather than just spout meaningless ad hominem or undergrad level informal fallacies they read about in an argument Dawkins once had with a creationist.
When that happens I get valuable insights into why people like yourself you are so doggedly insistent on being so utterly wrong.
Progress is being made, don’t worry about me. Worry about yourself.
Re: Re: Re:8
Progress is being made, don’t worry about me. Worry about yourself.
Believe me, I’m not worried about you. Your kind I consider ‘entertainment.’
Good luck with the next insurrection. Just a little advice – next time, don’t livestream your felonies.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:9 Insurrection
I’m glad you find the obscenity of what is being done the victims of the J6 “insurrection” lie entertaining, but I assure you, people who are have not completely lost there sense of decency just because a person they don’t like won the presidency re absolutely aghast at the horrendous political crimes being committed against people who were obviously set up.
Laugh now. But you won’t be laughing when it’s all said and done.
Re: Re: Re:10 The definition of privilege
Ever wonder what the people who you hate for not looking like you, thinking like you, or looking like you mean when we use the word privilege?
America is the only place in the world, and the only nation in history, where people who look, think, and look like insurrectionists are allowed to be alive after what amounts to a war campaign against their very own government.
Re: Re: Re:11
You may want to look into that a bit better.
Remove the lower become protestors who plead to outrageous inflated crimes rather that face expensive trial….
You have a few extremists
And a whole lot of trespassing.
Nobody (rational) denies a few extremists took advantage. Just like criminals took advantage of BLM to loot and pillage.
99.9% of Jan6 was peaceful protest.
Loud, aggressive, but still rather peaceful. 20 people entering the floor of the capital…
Hundreds cheering the burning of security and staff in a federal courthouse.
Use your damn brain.
Re: Re: Re:12
What I will do instead is mimic that white bro tough talk AggroChad alpha male posturing that so impresses white bros.
And as a side bonus, while I am at it dissonance your cognitives too.
Not all bros 😂🤣😂
Ell Oh Ell
Yo bro you’re judged by the company you keep bro.
“You have a few extremists” is just another way of saying that the biggest problem with Camp Auschwitz guy was that the shirt was a bad look bro. If you’re not thinking that bro, then you must be regretting not wearing your Camp Auschwitz shirt too bro.
Yo bro at least 81 million people had no need to protest bro. Bet you weren’t thinking about the majority of Americans who did the right thing at the ballot box bro.
All up in other’s business bro. Throwing tantrums like a child. Bros acting like Karens bro. GI Joe cosplay bro.
Proud Boys bro. Boys indeed bro.
Bro you know what I notice bro? Ever notice how like white people, not all white people, but like racist ones and maybe not-racist ones too like really pay way too much attention to Black people? And like when it’s not Black people it’s Brown people bro? And Asian people bro?
And you know bro, don’t take this the wrong way bro, but I don’t understand this whole trans business. I mean bro I watch Fox News all day like you bro and watch a lot more sports now that the woke M&M got Tucker Carlson fired or some shit but I don’t really see women dressing up as men to come into the same bathroom as me to look at my johnson bro. But I mean bro what I don’t like is that if we ban trans children, how are we protecting them bro if we have to look at their pee pees to make sure all the plumbing’s in the right place bro? It ain’t right bro.
Like why don’t we white people pay attention to white people shit bro? Like our own lived experiences bro?
Like bro, just between you and me, mayonnaise don’t taste all that good. I don’t really like Wonder Bread and I think all this fast food we eat is making my cholesterol too high bro. And bro, I’m starting to feel that the payments on my lifted F-150 are too much and my truck is hard to park bro.
But guns bro, right? America, fuck yeah bro!
Bro bro bro. There’s like a guy who wrote for Foreign Policy bro and pointed out that most of the insurrectionists were well-to-do white bros who didn’t like that America ain’t lookin like dem bros in the mirror no more bro.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/01/06/trump-capitol-insurrection-january-6-insurrectionists-great-replacement-white-nationalism/?fbclid=IwAR1LoTb9ehe4AFW5igI0TlU6tLJIWj_DKc0_PW8OGtiQzPgDvB5j_3XFUsQ
Not a good look bro. I thought white bros like us were the ones who hunted the wooly mammoth, built the Empire State Building and put a man on the moon. We lookin’ like a bunch of Karens bro.
Re: Re: Re:13
No need to protest?
To hell with your me-first attitude. I have every reason to protest. Election methods were changed without state legislatures, by criminal governors.
Polling locations were closed without notice.
Ballots were dumped by the bag full with total disregard in public. Parking lots, road sides, trash bins.
I don’t care about the winner here, the process was corrupted!
The company? So every one of those BLM protesters were equally responsible for the hundreds of millions of dollars in destruction, vandalism, theft, arson, and assault. Criminal actions of just a few in each location?
What the hell bro bro bro fox bro. Maybe you’re trying to be funny, but I have no idea what you are even referencing.
Whatever you’re trying to bro out, I simply don’t get it.
Re: Re: Re:14
Bro do your own research bro.
Re: Re: Re:15
Bro has been a pot smoking joke for many years
Other than that? You clearly have the wrong target audience here.
Re: Re: Re:16
Bro i literally spelled out what i was literally doing bro its literally in the post three posts above this bro
Re: Re: Re:17
AggroChad?
Looks like som social stupidity crap.
Twitter, twitch
Crap I don’t have and don’t use. Again
Wrong audience. Your nonsense joke was wasted.
Re: Re: Re:18
I know, right? This thread is a week old and more than 300+ posts in. There was no audience.
This is me putting sand in the replies to deprive nonsense of its oxygen.
Like me telling Beeze that he replies to Every. Damn. Thing., and him not taking the hint that he shouldn’t reply and does so anyway, I got Beeze in the trap.
Guess what AggroChad was …
Re: Re: Re:13 Not the standard
Who are you? The second coming of Stalin himself?
The standard is whether you think there is a “need to protest”.
There is an absolute right to protest, and a right to fair trial and unjust search and seizure. All of which were denied these people.
Re: Re: Re:14 Raising the dead
A point so thoroughly settled no one felt compelled to raise the dead issue and to debate it as if there had doubt to begin with.
THREE HUNDRED AND FIFTEEN POSTS later, I’ve realized that to comprehend Beeze, you have to not directly engage Beeze’s words and ideas. It’s like why you don’t gaze directly into the sun.
No, Beeze’s post must be interpreted as a performance. Discursive kayfabe, if you will. To look at Beeze’s words, sentences and arguments as a claim to fact-truth to be debated and rebutted is a category error.
Beeze’s words, sentences and arguments are to be interpreted as illusions, postures and gestures.
When Beeze says There is an absolute right to protest, and a right to fair trial and unjust search and seizure. it is mimicry of words and ideas that have a well-understood meaning. Which is why we no longer argue this point.
What Beeze is performing, is what we who understand the meaning of what he’s saying, is a child screaming at the audience: “LOOK AT ME! DO YOU SEE THE MOUND BENEATH MY FEET? THAT IS THE MORAL HIGH GROUND! I AM STANDING ON IT! YOU ARE NOT STANDING ON IT! WHY ARE YOU NOT STANDING ON IT? I AM STANDING ON IT BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT STANDING ON IT!”
Beeze also has a shtick. A Beeze performance involves him Replying. To. Every. Damn. Thing. He will reply to this one to keep up the routine. The follow-up gesture and posture will be Smartest-Guy-In-The-Room, where he does an impression of an informed person advancing an argument, but lacking the self-awareness to recognize fallacies, so you know it’s a bit.
Beeze also has another character besides SGITR. It’s Civil Liberties Crusader, performed as the child on the mound as shown above. The favorite opponent he likes to shadowbox with is Censorship. (Seriously: Do a Ctrl+F for censorship and count how many times Beeze has uttered it. Since Beeze isn’t a performer skilled enough to pull off irony, I will remind you that there are THREE HUNDRED FIFTEEN POSTS in a week old article.) But Beeze’s bit will work with anything within the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, heck even the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist papers or correspondence from the Founding Fathers. It’s like the trope from old-time movies or classic animation where a woman is tied to rails and, oh noez!, only Beeze can heroically arrive to save the damsel in distress before the speeding locomotive trammels the origins of our republic.
Re: Re: Re:14 Live and in Living Colour
Joseph Stalin. And Gandhi.
Yours truly,
Re: Re: Re:12
“99.9% of Jan6 was peaceful protest”
They were simply enjoying the tour, right?
and then someone was murdered in cold blood for doing nothing at all?
then some people beat the shit outta a few cops with flag poles and fire extinguishers … fun times for all?
Yeah, you can take that bullshit and shove it.
Re: Re: Re:13
Or whenever you see a J6 defender, on Jan. 6 wish them a Happy Eugene Goodman Day.
Re: Re: Re:13
Yes, a few dozen members of a violent group were among the large crowd.
And?
You want me to point out all the criminal actions during blm protests? I don’t blame the group for the criminals. You (in general those who call a protest an “insurrection”) are quick to say how those criminals were not part of the protests. But of course you can only defend those you agree with.
Re: Re: Re:12
99.9% of Jan6 was peaceful protest.
In terms of the 0.1%, can you clarify if the piece of shit walking with the confederate flag (which I like to call a ‘participation trophy’ as we’re all aware the confederacy surrendered) is the same asshole who took it upon himself to shit on the floor?
I just want to keep you bottom feeding pieces of shit straight on my bingo card.
Here’s a little tip for you…we all got to watch what white trash america looked like live on TV while it happened. And then the kicker was when you people, in all your trailer-park-8th-grade-educational-glory livestreamed everything to social media, as if you were showing everyone how you made yourselves a roadkill sandwich.
Don’t be a fucking idiot, Lostinlodos, and don’t fucking try to sell some bullshit that’s contrary to what we all saw with our own eyes. The videos are there, thanks to the stupidity of the morons involved, and I’d be happy to post links to them if you want some. And it’s not ’20 or so people’ sitting in jail right now feeling fucking stupid because not only did they get played like a fucking fiddle, but also got hung out to dry by the guy they were doing it for.
Keep in mind those are federal sentences – they’re going to have to serve (I think) 80% before they’re even considered to be let out. It’s no small fuck up on their part, so downplaying it is fine for you, but it sure ain’t doing them any favors.
When are you stupid fucking sons of bitches going to stop being suckers? I mean, it’s funny and all to watch, but come on. Do you really need to hand trump your last fucking dollar before you finally admit you’ve been played?
Re: Re: Re:13
Your comment makes it clear you can’t separate a few trees from the forest.
Feel free to read the legal documentation of the events. How many were outside legally protesting, by those that entered the building (with permission of security), by people who illegally entered.
Feel free to come back and re to make your statement when using the actual counter numbers.
Re: Re: Re:14
Your comment makes it clear you can’t separate a few trees from the forest.
Your comment makes it clear you can’t differentiate 20 from several hundred.
Lay off the abstract math for a while. It’s not doing you any favors here.
Re: Re: Re:15
Several hundred did not commit a crime. A few dozen did. That’s the fact.
Less than 100 entered the capital without invite. There were between 22 and 28 people (depending on report) in the stairwell hallway when an over zealous officer used lethal force against a veteran.
Less than 30 people entered through broken windows. The over all number who violated the law is under 100.
Re: Re: Re:16
By all means, keep looking at the pictures and lying to yourself. Those jackholes sitting in jail are facing the reality that you’re here denying, which is fine by me.
And understand that if they’re stupid enough to try again, the same thing will happen whether you believe it or not.
Reality happens whether or not you jackasses want it to. Just remember that when you decide to put your ideas in action.
Fool.
Re: Re: Re:17
I understand your thoughts now. Forced Pleading to a lesser charge due to financial concerns is only a problem if you are any race other than white.
It’s perfectly acceptable that the powers that be, your choice in powers that be, charged people with outrageous fictions for standing infront of the capital. Perfectly acceptable that the protestors then plead to nonsense such as trespass and diaturvjng the peace.
You’re happy your choice won and don’t care that the integrity of the process has been corrupted. I care regardless of the result.
Every governor who changed election process unilaterally should be tried for treason, convicted, stockaded, and quartered by bourse.
And yes, I say the same thing for the dozen fucks that actually broke the law on Jan 6.
You acting lick an idiot. You have handed power to the 1% of conspiracy idiots in your stubborn refusal to accept the actual realities of the 20 election.
You’re risking a Trump win in 24. A potential write in win of a potentially disqualified candidate. Not because the majority believes his thoughts on the election. Rather, because the majority believes he will fix the real issues.
Our elections have been corrupted that is an undeniable fact.
Re: Re: Re:15
The only thing there was a forest of was undercover agents and officer engaging in the very apparently seditious behaviour you are accusing protestors of.
We don’t know exactly how many, but we do know that the benefit of the doubt should never go to the officials who do have access to that information and chose to either keep it secret or outright lie about it.
The adverse inference very much applies.
Re: Re: Re:16
See my above comment – reality isn’t interested in your bullshit. There’s a whole shitload of you who think ‘nothing happened’ while there’s a bunch of people who were there that are facing actual consequences for that ‘nothing.’
As long as those cop-beating, floor-shitting, inbred, redneck hick capitol rioters are in jail, feeling stupid, losing their families, possessions, livelihoods, and jobs, just like any other criminal – justice is served.
And your belief as to what happened or didn’t is irrelevant. Just like your other delusional buddy LostinLodos.
Perhaps you should both pray for them. No harm in bringing another bullshit fairy tale thing into the mix, amirite?
Re: Re: Re:17 Were you asleep?
Were you asleep during the entirety of Donald Trump’s term?
Do you still just blindly accept whatever turds CNN serves up for you?
Re: Re: Re:10
I’m glad you find the obscenity of what is being done the victims of the J6 “insurrection” lie entertaining,
Absolutely, I do! It was like watching a live-action Darwin award competition! Never did I ever think that a group of people would be so fucking incredibly stupid as to think that livestreaming their crimes was a good idea, along with assuming that a douchenozzle like trump would’ve pardoned them.
And he could’ve you know. If he really believed in what they were doing or cared about them one scintilla, he might’ve. But he didn’t. That lack of compassion certainly isn’t MY fault. They’re just facing the consequences of their own actions, like any other criminal pieces of shit, amirite? Don’t expect me to care about them if the asshole they did it for doesn’t. That’s their folly, and if they still want more, well have fucking at it!
But you won’t be laughing when it’s all said and done.
Yeah, I will be. Because if you think there’s going to be some kind of ‘movement’ now that the orange asshole is facing jail time himself, I’d be on the lookout for the guy who offloaded the bridge on you the first time. I don’t think ‘civil warring’ will make for an effective unemployment claim and might jeopardize social security benefits for the disabled/geriatric fools who want to help.
But by all means, try again. Let’s see how many more of you drop dead or get Babbited in the process this time. I anxiously await my social media to light up with more maga stupidity!
Re: Re: Re:11
CNN’s morning and night time lineup tried to compete with MSNBC while they pushed their daytime coverage right in less aggressive coverage of Republican issues. The result was no new viewers and the further loss of long time viewers.
And I did say it wouldn’t make a difference globally. But you do realise that YouTube make most of their advertising revenue from the United States, right?
Then you’re watching political content or news content. I have to scroll 4-6 pages worth down to find the first news related story.
And every one of those studies is slanted by the options the “user” walked into it with.
If you have a clean slate fresh install you will see whatever is most popular suggested to you. If you have years of internet history and don’t freeload blocking advertising and clearing cookies, you get what YOU are interested in.
Didn’t you just state something about it being a 2.5 billion… yep!
A few thousand self righteous hardliners unwilling to accept that people have the freedom to speak things they don’t like isn’t going to kill the company. Any more than a he loss of independent US voters. But the people who would walk away over content they would never see if they didn’t go looking for it, are very few in number.
From the overall YouTube perspective, go cry elsewhere.
What is it with some people, playing some twisted modern version of Opus Dei?!? If you don’t like something, stop looking for it.
Your last comment is what I said. Rather than censor something that’s wrong, combat it with truth.
There were real crimes in the 2020 election process: and it has nothing to do with voting machines. It is unlikely that such criminality changed the election. But such actions opened up the floodgates to conspiracy.
Re: Re: Re:8
Translation:
“Find lies that superficially agree with me via google”
Re: Re: Re:7
See, there’s the issue. We weren’t discussing sum. The combination of two quantities in count.
You can add two and two, but rare is the result four single likenesses. Or even equivalents.
And that is my point. YouTube looked at the crash of CNN and decided not to be a repeat.
They decided that swiping discussions with the grit is likely to not only chill legitimate speech but also loose a large group of users.
Not the fringe, mind you, the independent voting block that continues to have healthy discussion within itself over the problems of the 20 election and how to solve those problems in the future.
Unlike many here, YouTube has realised that there is far more than two political camps. And that the ones outside the two can make or break a platform.
Would YouTube survive without independent US voters? Sure. Doe it need to cut off nearly a third of the country? No
I’ve made my concerns known about suggestions of content and debated that being or not being a published statement of the company. But reality is you are very unlikely to come across political content on YouTube unless you are, or regularly, search for it.
On a rare occasion a local story will pop up on the main page. My location sharing is turned on. Other than that I can’t remember the last time I had anything political on the first few blocks of my main page.
Honestly I could not care less about black power and neo Nazi discourse taking place on YouTube. They have a right to discuss what they want. And the chance of it ever coming across my screen is just about zero.
The people who see election disinformation, are the people already discussing it. And those people already have their minds set in stone on where they are. But by leaving the majority discussion, there’s a chance that could chip a few cracks into the ignorant far right ideas.
Re: Re: Re:8
“YouTube looked at the crash of CNN and decided not to be a repeat”
You do know that the major problem with CNN was that the CEO of their owner wanted it to be more like Fox and the swing right alienated a lot of viewers, and that despite right-wing memes it was never actually a leftist version of that channel, and most people got their news from other places as well? Not to mention generally lower viewership of cable in general and cable news specifically?
I’m not sure exactly how much each factor plays into things, but I’m also sure that YouTube’s business model is nothing like CNN’s.
“Would YouTube survive without independent US voters?”
You do know that YouTube is a global service with 2.5 billion users so losing a small percentage of that… meh, you know what, forget it.
“But reality is you are very unlikely to come across political content on YouTube unless you are, or regularly, search for it”
While I certainly have my feed curated, that’s demonstrably not true. There’s numerous studies that show that new users are often recommended videos that either are expressly political, or which lead to a right-wing political space in a short amount of time.
As with all social media – “I don’t see it” does not mean others don’t.
“Honestly I could not care less about black power and neo Nazi discourse taking place on YouTube”
So, you’re not black or Jewish? Cool. The problem isn’t that those videos exist, it’s that they drive people to act elsewhere. I don’t think those people flying Nazi flags in support of DeSantis got there on their own, and I don’t think it’ll end with flags.
“The people who see election disinformation, are the people already discussing it. And those people already have their minds set in stone on where they are”
So… wouldn’t it be a good idea to have those people exposed to actual information to based their votes on? I don’t mind genuine political disagreement, but a lot of people seem to be basing their votes on fictional nonsense.
Re: Re: Re:9 On what planet are you living?
Seriously?
Were not not there when CNN lied repeatedly about everything? Remember the Cuomo affair?
Did you know who paid most of Cooper’s salary?
They lost viewership because they have zero credibility with anyone who isn’t a religiously partisan nutcase.
CNN is about far right as Vladimir Lenin.
Re: Re: Re:
Philosophy of mathematics, as all philosophy, is basically garbage, but “2 + 2 = 4” is straightforwardly proved and accepted by everyone except for cranks. (I fondly remember the uber-crank Archimedes Plutonium from Usenet days.)
That is, we start with a set labeled as 0, define a successor function that can be repeatedly applied, and label the successor of 0 as 1, the successor of 1 as 2, and so forth. We also define what addition means when applied to these sets. Then we demonstrate that applying the addition method to the sets 2 and 2 produces a result which is the same as the set 4.
Re: Re: Re:2 Peano's axioms
You realize that that idea is straight from the philosophy of mathematics of the very era that I have been talking about?
That’s Peano’s axioms.
This is exactly what Gödel showed is not a proof of “2+2=4”.
Peano arithmetic is undecidable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decidability_(logic)#Decidability_of_a_theory
Your claim is essentially the flat-eartherism of mathematics, the creationism of logic.
Re: Re: Re:3
“Undecidable” means that there exist statements such that neither they nor their negations are provable within the system, not that no statements are provable within the system.
See, that’s what I mean by cranks. People like you get some fixed wrong notion in their heads and are just led down the garden path, being wrong forever about everything because you’re starting out with a wrong assumption that you refuse to understand is wrong. (Sort of like woke gender ideology, come to think of it.)
Re: Re: Re:4 Think before you hurl insults
Can you not first stop and apologize for the fact that you appeared to claim Peano’s axioms as your own insight after attacking the very mathematical philosophy that gave rise to them.
Some humility is called of.
Especially, in this case, since you don’t seem to understand that having undecidable statements within a system breaks it, because of the ex falso quodlibet.
That’s why Tarski showed that you can generalize the principle to show that truth is undefinable from within a system.
That means that it is meaningless to say “2+2=4” is objectively true based on the principles of arithmetic. That’s what’s at issue here: The objective part.
Please get that clear in your head before you continue to throw baseless insults that only serve to illustrate the shallowness of your understanding.
If 2+2=4 is not objectively true (which in this case means true in all possible worlds, or logically necessary), it is true for some other reason, be it subjectively or by social construction, or false.
Whether it is true or false has no impact on its utility. But thinking it is objectively true is objectively false, provably so.
The only other interpretation that could be conceived of as saying that math is “objectively true” would be mathematical Platonism, which basically no different from religion.
If you have some other definition for what “objective” should mean in this context, please do tell. But please be so kind as to cite your sources, because it shows that you have taken the effort of informing yourself about things before spouting off the laziest explanation that popped into your head in the shower one day.
Re: Re: Re:4
AC, I’ve figured out that Beeze is thoroughly committed to his bit. He’s doing a performance, not really debating some high-sophistication concept of mathematics.
You are correct about the crankdom, though. Those are Beeze’s sincere beliefs.
Re: Re: Re:4 Try to be productive
I am going to give it one last try to have a reasonable and productive exchange, so: What do you think is the difference between the statements
“2+2=4” and “2+2=4 is true”? What is the “true” part adding to the statement?
Really think about this one.
Do you think it means “is true within the system of arithmetic”?
Or do you think it means “is true by reference to external objects”?
Or do you perhaps think it means “is true by virtue of structural relationships”?
Perhaps you might think it means “is true by socio-linguistic convention”?
Or, perhaps it just doesn’t mean anything at all and can be “deflated” away?
All of these are extensively considered positions with long histories and interesting stories and known issues. So when you say “2+2=4 is objectively true”, don’t you think you owe us an explanation as to what you think that is supposed to mean?
Because I can tell you one thing: It’s not as straightforward as you might imagine.
Re: Re: Re:5
As I said, philosophy is largely garbage. “2 + 2 = 4” is true within systems where 2, 4, +, and = have their typical defined meanings and there is a proof system that lets theorems be developed from axioms. It is also sort-of true in the real world when dealing with numbers of discrete objects, but the macro real world does not model mathematical constructs exactly, so you get situations such as mixing together 2 quarts of water and 2 quarts of alcohol getting you less than 4 quarts of mix.
Part of the philosophical nonsense is trying to distinguish between “true” and “provable” in mathematical systems. When a statement is undecidable in a system, either it or its negation may be adjoined to the axioms of the system to form a new system which is as consistent as the original. The “true” vs. “provable” stuff arises because of ω-incompleteness; you can have consistent systems that assert that there exists a number satisfying some property, along with proofs for every natural number that it does not satisfy the property. That’s counterintuitive, and anything like that gets the philosophers’ hearts racing to write their treatises.
Re: Re: Re:6 Courtier's Reply
This is one of the reasons why I responded to [redacted] with Courtier’s Reply. It’s an informal fallacy that boils down to demanding a high level of sophistication to respond to a simple question.
As the RationalWiki entry explains:
PZ Myers coined it using a humorous allusion to “The Emperor’s New Clothes,” that in order for the boy to point out that the naked emperor is in fact naked, the boy would have to not only be a tailor but also know fashion and apparel materials from first principles in order to even speak.
[Redacted] did this repeatedly, and by virtue of leaning into his position despite knowing several rebuttals as well as pointing out the fallacy he commits, [redacted] is clearly being disingenuous and is committing to a bit.
Watch what he does, not what he says. It’ll start to make more sense when you see this as a performance and not an argument and you’ll realize you were sane the whole time.
You’re not going to get him to concede the point. He Replies. To. Every. Damn. Thing. He assumes the posture of Smartest-Guy-In-The-Room, avalanching you with more tendentious argument, or Civil Liberties Crusader who has come to fight Censorship.
If it helps, I break down in detail the performance of his posts, and how it fits a predictable pattern at https://www.techdirt.com/2023/06/06/possible-reasons-why-youtube-has-given-up-trying-to-police-2020-election-misinfo/#comment-3046119
Re: Re: Re:7
I enjoy wrestling with the pig. Don’t worry about me. When there’s an issue I care about, I can be as prolix as any crank. And I can see what he is without needing third-party analysis, thanks anyway.
Re: Re: Re:6
Dude!
Peano’s axioms ARE philosophy.
Okay, progress. Thank you.
So, when you say “have their typical defined meanings”, are you not saying their meaning is socially constructed, like all linguistic meanings.
Any system that “lets theorems be developed from axioms” is either internally inconsistent or externally inconsistent. Because of the ex falso quodlibet, when there is one inconsistency, anything can be proven.
That’s Frege was devastated when Russell showed that the set-theoretical approach to “proving” math resulted in a contradiction. One internal contradiction is all you need for the rational basis of system to be destroyed, and one external contradiction is enough for claim of “objective truth” to be falsified.
Yes, but not both.
There is no “objective” way to decide which to include, so it’s arbitrary.
Remember, the claim was that “2+2=4 is objectively true”. We are not arguing about the “2+2=4” part, we are arguing about the “objective” part. The “true” part, as you can see, is arbitrary from within the system. It doesn’t actually matter operationally if you consider every mathematical statement to be true or false.
The utility of seeing everything as false instead of true is that avoids exactly this mistake of thinking that math has objective validity (completeness) at the same time as internal consistency.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/metalogic/Discoveries-about-formal-mathematical-systems
“Let us consider the sentence
(2) This sentence is not provable in the system.
In particular, N may be thought of as the system being studied. Representing expressions by numbers and using an ingenious substitution function, Gödel was able to find in the system a sentence p that could be viewed as expressing (2).
Once such a sentence is obtained, some strong conclusions result. If the system is complete, then either the sentence p or its negation is a theorem of the system. If p is a theorem, then intuitively p or (2) is false, and there is in some sense a false theorem in the system. Similarly, if ∼p is a theorem, then it says that ∼(2) or that p is provable in the system. Since ∼p is a theorem, it should be true, and there seem then to be two conflicting sentences that are both true—namely, p is provable in the system and ∼p is provable in it. This can be the case only if the system is inconsistent.”
Re: Re: Re:7
So many words, so much garbage.
The initial attempt at set theory resulted in a contradiction because everybody was new at the game. Then the axioms were fixed up to avoid the problem once the problem was understood.
Things are “objectively true” within systems that have means for demonstrating that. The laws of physics are objectively true in the real world. (Which is not too easy that we have figured out what all of them are, but they exist independently if us.)
When a proposition is demonstrated to be undecidable, such as the Continuum Hypothesis or the Axiom of Choice, mathematicians pick the version that they think will give them more fruitful things to study when incorporated. Some of them are looking for different versions of set theory in which these axioms be provable. So sure, arbitrary in some sense. Given that infinite sets don’t exist in the real world, it’s not as if one can examine the world to decide which to pick.
Re: Re: Re:8 What?
That’s not how this works.
Goedel’s argument is inescapable if you are trying to establish the necessary truth of mathematics (what I believe you think of as “objective”, though you refuse to explain what you think the term means despite my profuse offers of assistance).
The proof comes from first order logic, which Goedel also showed to be both complete and consistent and applies to ANY axiom scheme more expressive than first order logic.
Two of the fathers of modern computing, von Neumann and Turing, both independently produce further variations of this proof, among several other versions, before Tarski showed that the problem generalizes to concept of truth itself.
What you are peddling is hypercomputation, which is essentially the equivalent of faith-healing for mathematicians.
You don’t have to take my word for it:
https://www.academia.edu/35910556/No_Mysteries_Davis_and_the_myth_of_hypercomputation
Re: Re: Re:9
Gödel’s theorems didn’t cause Russell’s Paradox. That was caused by carelessly defining the notion of a set whose members all have a property. Defining the axioms properly dispenses with Russell’s Paradox. Gödel’s incompleteness theorem, Turing’s halting problem, and so forth, are an inevitable part of mathematics. They’re also what makes it fun, since you can’t just, even in theory, iterate through all possible theorems and see whether your favorite one is proven or disproven, because neither might ever show up.
In mathematics, things are objectively true when they’re proven. Things are proven when they follow from previous results by defined rules of reasoning. Every once in a while, there’s a dispute about whether those rules have been followed correctly, and you get things like Mochizuki’s unaccepted proof of the abc conjecture.
Re: Re: Re:10 Gödel’s theorems didn’t cause Russell’s Paradox
Who said it did?
No, this is what you’re not getting.
Gödel showed (PROVED) that any attempt to formalize mathematics with axiom system stronger than first order logic will result in a paradox.
That PROVEN, and proven in many different ways in different ways by many different people.
It is utterly inescapable because first order logic is complete and consistent, unlike mathematics, which is second order.
Thanks for committing to a definition, but what you are describing is a socially constructed, or possibly pragmatic idea of truth.
It’s not “objective” precisely because it depends on what set of axioms you are prepared to accept. A subjective criterion. This is necessarily so, because second order axiom systems are either incomplete or inconsistent, so whatever set of axioms you end up using, there is always a paradox built in.
And when there is a paradox built in the ex falso quodlibet applies, meaning 2+2=4 is only true because you believe it to be true and there is technically no “objective” reason why you could not have chosen 2+2=3 to be true instead. Or both.
The only appeal is to convention and practicality, neither of which are ordinarily considered objective. It is, in Kant’s term, a synthetic truth. 2+2=4 is true only because believe it to be true.
Re: Re: Re:11
No, Gödel proved that a consistent mathematics will always have undecidable propositions. No paradoxes involved.
I understand that part of being a crank is hewing to an internalized falsehood, but you should at least realize that once you are known as a crank, there is no way that anyone else will accept that falsehood, no matter how many times you repeat it. You are not a brave defender of truth fighting against a tide of falsehood. You are just an idiot.
Re: Re: Re:12 Have you read Gödel?
Gödel proved the incompleteness theorem by constructing a paradox. He essentially transcribed the liars’ paradox into a mathematical formalism called Gödelisation that, more or less, underpins modern computing.
https://cs.stackexchange.com/questions/6883/g%C3%B6delization-in-turing-machine
Gödel numbering basically encapsulates Peano’s axioms, which is what makes your appeal to them (still without citation, ahem) so funny.
Re: Re: Re:13
The statement constructed by Gödel was not the problematic set-from-property from Russell’s Paradox. “Modern computing” is not underpinned by Gödel numbering, but parts of computer science (which studies computability and complexity) are, although it’s easier to deal with Turing machines. That’s just more math, and it all rests on perfectly solid foundations, with lifts of perfectly valued proofs.
Re: Re: Re:14 A paradox
A paradox is a paradox is a paradox.
Proving any paradox is derivable within a system shows it is inconsistent. It’s a basic element of mathematical proof theory to use proof by contradiction (reductio ad absurdum).
You don’t need some special contradiction for it, any will do. The ex falso quodlibet takes care of the rest.
Seriously, this is Logic 101 stuff.
Anything that can be computed can be computed on a Turing machine, this is the central thesis of modern computing. Turing machines are essentially implementations of the Gödel numbering concept.
I think you meant “valid”, but no. If mathematical proofs are internally consistent, they are unsound. And if sound, they are inconsistent.
Are you seriously denying the incompleteness theorem?
That’s what I find so intriguing: The very people who love accusing others of misinformation invariably end up believing in the mathematical equivalent of creationism.
Talk about being “not even wrong”.
Re: Re: Re:3
You keep on proving that you do not understand the decidability theorem, which only says it is possible to write statement that cannot be proven, and not, as you insist, that all statements are undecidable, and is proven within system that it says are undecidable.
Re: Re: Re:4 That's not what Goedel's theorem says
No. That’s not what Goedel proved.
What Goedel proved was that it is possible to write a statement WITHIN ANY SYSTEM MORE EXPRESSIVE THAN FIRST ORDER LOGIC that either cannot be proven, or is contradictory.
The problem is the external justification in systems like mathematics. The problem is that it means something. The problem is the claim that it is “objectively” true.
The ex falso quodlibet means that if there is one undecidable statement within a system that refers externally, the whole system fails.
It’s because of disjunction introduction:
-> If A then Donald Trump is great guy deserving of respect
-> If ~A then Donald Trump is an orange haired loser going to jail for life.
If I were to give you a contradiction A&~A, you could logically deduce either of the above statements perfectly validly. You could deduce anything you perfectly validly.
“The earth is flat”? Yes
“God exists”? Yes
“Magic is real”? Yes
“Biden is a lunatic”? Yes
“Biden is perfectly corpus mentis”? Yes
Anything you like, no matter how bizarre. That’s why Goedel matters and why the assertion of mathematics being “objectively” true, especially as a justification for a censorship regime is problematic.
The claim inherently irrational, and objectively false if the concept of “objectivity” has any meaning at all.
Re: Re: Re:5
Equivocating fulcrum.
Re: Re: Re:5
Mathematics deals with itself; the universe doesn’t contain infinities, for example. To be objectively true in mathematics means to be derived from other objectively true results by defined rules of reasoning, beginning with axioms that are objectively true by definition.
Re: Re: Re:4
That actually raises an interesting question (whose answer I don’t know). The Continuum Hypothesis and the Axiom of Choice are undecidable within standard set theory, but they have been proven to be undecidable (by embedding models in which they’re either provable or disprovable, yada, yada, yada, fancy math). Are there undecidable propositions which cannot be proven undecidable in this way? I would guess yes, but I don’t know.
Re: Re: Re:5 Decidability of P vs NP
I think there are things which have not yet been proven to be undecidable, but that something that cannot be proven undecidable would collapse in on itself like P vs NP. Proving one or the other is essential equivalent to proving a certain class of problem decidable or not.
The only way that seems feasible to prove something cannot be proven undecidable is to prove it decidable. These proofs should be symmetrical by the law of the excluded middle.
AFAIK, math is neither true nor false, it is what it is.
A model is created to depict some occurrence, said model is imperfect but is good enough to provide insight into the problem under analysis. This does not make the model true or false.
One could say it is either useful or not, but true/false is not an applicable determination.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Exactly
Precisely correct. Thank you.
The confusing part is that logic forces you to assign a truth value regardless, but people have trouble understanding that assigning truth by default just because there is proof is pseudoscientific because of the problem of induction.
Re: Re:
“Precisely correct. Thank you.”
Just to clear, I am not in agreement with your positions on the matter, you are welcome none the less.
Re:
A simple example I like to use for comprehension:
If you have 2 dollars and a two dollar bill, you have 4 dollars. But only three bills.
In that case two plus two equals both 4 and 3.
This is not a math site. It is, in practice, a political site. Understanding that 2+2 often does not equal 4 is an easy first step to comprehension of political existence.
The biggest flaw most people make is defining the world as 1+1.
Re: Re:
Half-correct.
Numbers are values and representations of something else. We understand this intuitively.
The bill is a representation of a unit of account for legal tender. The same numbers represent two very different things we are looking to measure: the face value of the legal tender, and the physical units of the legal tender itself.
Face value: (2×1) + (1×2) = 4 = (1+1)+(2)
Physical units: $2[1] + $1[2] = 3 = 1+2
The salient consideration of the money is its face value. We hold money for what it represents as a unit of account. The counting of the physical units of money is true in more specialized contexts, like if you’re minding a mint, filling a cash register for the beginning of a business day or collecting coins from a vending machine.
But, it doesn’t follow that 4=3 because the numbers count fundamentally different things. One $10 bill is not less valuable than a roll of 40 quarters, they have equivalent purchasing power even though the roll of quarters has 39 more physical units of metal money than the one paper bill.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re: Debatable
That’s quite a bold statement.
It’s one of the things it represents, but if you get two economists to opine on the matter you’d be lucky if you get only three opinions on it.
That is also a contentious statement. I think only formalists would agree with this claim if I understand you correctly, but formalism was essential what Goedel disproved.
https://works.swarthmore.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1458&context=fac-philosophy
Platonists would certainly disagree.
Re: Re: Re:2
I hope you’re on the economics Nobel nominating committee.
I am far too modest. I give credit to Investopedia, a site dedicated to making economics concepts easy to grasp.
And Wikipedia:
Search engines are your friend, Beeze.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3 AND
My point was in response to the implicit claim that there is a single, simple, universally agreed upon meaning or reference to money. Your quote showing that there are, indeed, multiple bolster’s MY argument, not yours. Silly.
If you stopped trying to be a smartass for two seconds you would actually learn something.
Of course money is used as a unit of account. I didn’t dispute that.
But that’s not it’s ONLY function, and certainly is not considered the primary function by all economists.
When you say “The bill is a representation of a unit of account for legal tender.” you are ignoring all the other things you correctly cite:
“Money is a liquid asset used to facilitate transactions of value. It is used as a medium of exchange between individuals and entities.”
There are many other functions and meanings besides:
“1 Money is a creature of the law.
2 Money is not tangible wealth in itself but a power to obtain wealth.
3 Money is a token, worthless of itself but symbolising wealth.
4 Money is an abstract social power based in law.
5 Money is whatever Government accepts in taxes.
6 Money is a medium of exchange, which is legally enforced by Government.
7 Money is a medium of exchange that is accepted by the People.
8 Money only has value as a medium of exchange because it is accepted by the People and is legally enforced by Government acting on behalf of the People.”
https://positivemoney.org/2011/05/what-is-money/
Re: Re: Re:4
Your point is tendentious hair-splitting, pseudointellectual posturing and fallacious reasoning.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:5 It's not your splitting: Your notion of truth is completely untenable
The thing is, you think it’s hair splitting because you want to use your faulty definition of truth as justification to hold power over other’s speech… on the grounds that they are spreading disinformation.
Do you not see the supreme irony in this?
You are bullshitting (in Frankfurt’s terms) very notion that you are using to claim censorship power!
If there could ever conceivably such a thing as settled science, it is that your notion of truth cannot be justified. It’s as objectively false as it is possible to be, because if we accept your notion, all reasoning must fail.
Re: Re: Re:4
See on the more liberal economic front (eg Biden’s term and the printing of more money) truly believes what they say. They trust the value of the money that the government says.
I’ll take a moment to break down my view: one shared by billions across the planet.
The printed paper dollar is worth Apx 3ċ. Based on cost.
Or 1/1000th of a cent based on material value.
That piece of dead plant and oil is claimed to be valued at $1.00 USD. Because the president and the FR say so.
How much I trust the government to actually maintain any real value… is a debate for elsewhere. But the world does NOt trust the USD value as stated. That’s why the value has decreased and the amount needed for exchange has increased. Inflation.
I’m a STRONG support of valued barter. I’m not fond of the gold standard. But A standard. Silver has been the most stable exchangeable material. I’ve discussed before the ability to purchase goods from knowledgeable locales with clean silver.
Titanium and copper are also good stable value metals.
But I really have only passing faith in the value of a piece of paper with no backing.
But I’m realistic as well. If the economy crashes I’ll do better with trading canned food and tobacco than any metal.
Re: Re: Re:5
What a sham, right? It seems silly to have those paper rectangles just cluttering your wallet. If you don’t need them, I don’t mind taking them off your hands for you 😉
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Incompleteness
Yes, this is basically why math is incomplete, because in 2+2 only equals 4 for certain sorts of things.
There’s nothing inherently true about 2+2=4. Instead we use the formalism to denote things of which it would be true that 2+2=4, and it is always possible to be mistaken when we denote things in the real world with symbols.
It’s an absolutely critical distinction without which you can’t really do math or science.
It’s funny when people bring up tax and accounting in this context, because that’s exactly why those disciplines are anything but trivial. That’s why you pay an accountant to do your taxes in many countries.
Re: Re: Re:
Math is math. It is of itself. It consists of axioms and rules of reasoning. There is no requirement that any part of the physical universe behave in conformance with math.
It so happens that the physical universe does behave by the rules of mathematical constructs, so we can model its behavior through mathematics. But if we have cases of physical reality in which putting together 2 things and another 2 things doesn’t give you 4 things (such as mixing 2 quarts of water and 2 quarts of alcohol), it’s because that part of the universe doesn’t fit the mathematics of simple addition of integers. It does not make the math “incomplete”, it does not affect the mathematical properties of addition, it doesn’t mean anything philosophically. That cranks may treat it as something significant just makes the cranks cranks.
Re: Re: Re:2 Objectivity
There’s nothing wrong with what your saying, apart from the ignorance about the role of philosophy in all this
But the question is if math is OBJECTIVELY true.
What you are saying is that it is not, and that it doesn’t matter if you consider mathematical statements true or false, as long as it is internally consistent.
That’s exactly what I have been saying. But people are ideologically wedded to the idea that objective=good and subjective=bad, forgetting that the objective/subjective distinction is (a) a product of philosophy and (b) probably defective to start with.
The major issue, as with all kinds of censorship, that math has often grown by accepting things into it which were considered objective false in earlier times. Zero, negative numbers, imaginary numbers, p-adics, non-Euclidean geometry etc. All things that are now routinely accepted.
Math isn’t necessarily incomplete. But it is necessarily either incomplete or inconsistent. Pick one. Inconsistency is probably worse, and I think most mathematicians would balk at that. Incomplete is far better.
And that’s one of the reasons why you can’t use “objective truth” claims to justify censorship: Because anyone who believes in fairy tales like that is either ignorant, a rank fool, or deliberately misdirecting you.
Usually it’s the liars.
Re: Re:
Wrong, because you are mixing units, that is what the numbers refer to. Either you add the physical bills in which case 1 bill+1 bill+1 bill = 3 bills; or you add the values, in which case 1 dollar + 1 dollar + 2 dollars = 4 dollars. 2 bits of paper and 2 dollars are only ever two bits of paper and two dollars, and cannot be added together.
Both the math department and the philosophy department need paper, but only the math department needs a waste paper basket.
Funny story in the news is sorta related. Says ChatGPT repeats itself, tells the same jokes over and over.
Seems similar to the repeated postings of commenter named “Breeze”. Repeats the same thing, over and over. Gets to be monotonous.
Researchers discover that ChatGPT prefers repeating 25 jokes over and over
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/06/researchers-discover-that-chatgpt-prefers-repeating-25-jokes-over-and-over/
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Show me
Show me the repeated post.
Re: Re:
ChatBreeze says nothing is true or false, not just once, but multiple times it is said with silly examples with simple math. It is monotonous and boring.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re: Except, that's not what I said
I never said nothing is true or false. Please quote the post.
You thought that what I said because you have zero interest in basic first class of first year logic, philosophy of mathematics or epistemology.
This is actually a very complicated issue, the development which directly gave rise to modern computers. So it’s about as far from idle speculation as it is possible to get.
Stop clothing your ignorance is vapid insults.
Re: Re: Re:2 Guys, guys, I found it!
Done and done.
Beeze, in a post dated June 7, 2023 at 9:52 am:
Sorry to get all meta here, but as a warning to everyone not Beeze, the next response to this post from Beeze will be gaslighting.
From the Newport Institute:
Beeze is going to deny writing the post on June 7, 2023 at 9:52 am, claim that we are willfully misinterpreting words that are so commonly understood that their meanings are settled. Another common way he gaslights Techdirt is playing a cat-and-mouse game in which we have to go back and find the post where he insists he meant a literal presentation of the exact phrasing he used verbatim to show he never said what he did and draw you into a tendentious argument over precise semantics and grammar.
Evidence presented of the verbatim statement:
This is literally in the post above, written by Beeze on June 10, 2023 at 8:36 pm.
To reiterate:
is synonymous with the verbatim
Brace yourself for Beeze’s gaslighting. Not only will Beeze gaslight, but Beeze lacks the self-awareness and self-discipline to not take my bait — Beeze replies to Every. Damn. Thing. — and is going to respond anyway and prove my point for me.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3 Are you trying to prove yourself wrong?
This:
Does not mean this:
It’s that fact that you continue to believe these to be the same that is the problem.
Every proposition is either true or false, exclusively. What it is to be true or false cannot be defined (Tarski) and is not a function of reference (see the development of epistemology from Frege to Wittgenstein). As also cannot defined in isolation, but is a function of universe of logically connected propositions.
The most broadly accepted position among epistemologists is that truth is established through (linguistic) games between participants in a society.
This is why censorship is so dangerous and destructive of the norms of civilisation. When we stop talking, we start destroying knowledge and understanding.
This is not a new concept that was discovered in the 20th century, but the 20th century established the notion on a rigorous footing.
So, to be clear:
EVERY PROPOSITIONAL STATMEMENT IS EITHER TRUE OR FALSE, BUT NOT BOTH.
The question is how you think we establish which one for each.
The method of pseudoscience, to be clear, is defined (by Popper) as the method of establishing the truth of propositions by offering evidence. This is massively counterintuitive (like a lot of these things), which is why people like yourself struggle to wrap your head around it). But it follows directly from pure logic.
Again: That the method of proof is pseudoscience is as close to objective truth as it is possible to get. It is logically on an equal footing to evolution by means of natural selection.
Re: Re: Re:4
“Again: That the method of proof is pseudoscience is as close to objective truth as it is possible to get. It is logically on an equal footing to evolution by means of natural selection.”
Boring!
The one trick pony who calls its self Breeze has again replied with the same bullshit. Sorta like some politicians, the lack of creativity becomes obvious.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:5 Do you have something constructive to say?
Nu-uh isn’t actually an argument.
It is a subtle argument, I grant, but Popper’s reasoning broadly accepted (albeit begrudgingly at times) in the scientific community.
He certainly isn’t the last word on the matter, but his argument flows from pure logical principles and is pretty much inescapable.
It quite the cheek to implicitly argue that you know better when you can’t even be bothered to present an argument to that effect.
Re: Re: Re:6
and again … same ol’ shit
Re: Re: Re:4 Take it away, Nicki Minaj!
Pimpin’ ain’t slick and they ain’t sayin’ nothing
A hundred of ya suckers can’t tell me nothing
I Beeze in the trap, bee-Beeze in the trap
I Beeze in the trap, bee-Beeze in the trap
Re: Re: Re:2
“You thought that what I said because you have zero interest in basic first class of first year logic, philosophy of mathematics or epistemology.”
Boring! ZZzzzzzzzz
“Stop clothing your ignorance is vapid insults.”
Who is insulting whom? I suggested you are acting like a bot, your response is to childishly call others names.
Your act is getting old and tired.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Show me
Show me the repeated post.
Re:
How, evactly, are we supposed to “show” something to one whose eyes are firmly shut as yours.
but that can’t be resolved without assessing individual votes cast for validity (and eligibility).
And I’ll ask again, how many fucking times do you want to count the same goddamn votes? Until your desired candidate wins? You keep talking about ‘fairness’ – and I’m thinking that word means there is no outcome at all, other than a constant series of recounting until the next election.
Re:
I did see an election denier once try to use this logic. The dialogue went like something like this:
Election denier: You even admit that you don’t have 100% certainty over the accuracy of the vote count.
Sane person: Statistically, nothing can have 100% certainty or accuracy.
ED: That’s why we must keep recounting until we get a 100% accurate count. Only then will the outcome be certain.
SP: That’s now how any of this works.
ED: That’s just what someone who has something to hide would say.
SP: Look, your guy has 8 million fewer votes in an election that had 158 million ballots cast. All ballots have been accounted for, so there isn’t going to be a trove of 8 million ballots because there weren’t 166 million voters. There were 158 million.
ED: That’s why we need to recount the votes to find the fraudulent votes in the 158 million.
SP: You wouldn’t find anything, or not anything at the scale of finding 4 million miscast votes out of 158 million.
ED: Wait, we only need to find your guy stole 4 million votes from our guy? That’s much easier!
SP: You will not find anything that consequential. The problem is not spoiled ballots, which are marked as uncounted and do not go to any candidate or change the tally. That number is infinitesimally small.
ED: I see what you’re getting at. The number of so-called correct ballots are actually counted wrong.
SP: In a close race, candidates are entitled to a recount and this process reveals errors. However, even after recounting and noting errors, the probability of the outcome materially changing with the winner and loser flipped is minuscule. It’s only happened in races with few total votes and margins of two digits.
ED: So if you can have an error that changes the outcome in an election with just a dozen or so votes, when you scale those errors up to a presidential election, you have millions of errors! A-ha!
SP: On the contrary, a high-turnout election like the presidential race has such a high rate of accurately cast ballots that the correct ballots effectively cancel out the probability of an error of such a large magnitude.
ED: But you admit it’s not 100% certain and even if there’s a chance of an error, we should do a recount because that chance was here and now.
SP: The probability of that chance happening is like 1 in 5 billion.
ED: Fine, we will count the ballots 5 billion and 1 times to prove our guy won!
Re: Re:
It is rather humorous to see the vote re-count find even more votes for the opponent.
Re: Re:
Yep, totally agree Bobson. Got a funny story about an idiot cousin, who’s a die hard magahead. I sometimes wonder how he’s lived this long.
Funny thing is, he works in a machine shop. I asked him to check the drawings he uses for fabrication to see if the measurements are allowed any deviation…got a blank stare.
Thank dog someone checks the work.
The above thread is proof that right-wing fools who want to fuck over women, racial and sexual and gender minorities are still very much alive in the US. This Pride Month is an important reminder that we are in a constant struggle for our lives – no, our very existence. And straight interests will refuse to let that happen.
Oust a priest, install a drag queen. The time in the sun for straight people is over. It is long overdue. The paradigm shift must happen or we cannot progress as a species.
It’s becasue they’re lazy asshole who don’t want to pay people to do things. Why are you lying to us?