Checking in... Anxiety about current events

[Not_a_Number]

2 minutes ago, kbutton said:

How would you measure general reliability in this context? A fact checker? Adherence to norms? 

Oh, I dunno. I personally use common sense. If someone lies to me about facts or times, I try to remember it. 

(Lots of people will get facts wrong if not everything is known. That's different than willfully misleading.) 

[kbutton]

18 minutes ago, Plum said:

So say I question the election results. Not because I’m Q or have really paid any attention to  anything the President has said about it, but because it doesn’t pass my bs detector. They are trying to tell me that we had the cleanest election ever while the Solarwinds hack had been happening under their noses all year? Those two things cannot exist in the same space in my opinion. If you take away the fact that the big bad orange man was saying this, the idea that there weren’t any problems whatsoever with this election and there was nothing to see here is magical thinking. Do I want it to be true? Nope. Can I hold in my head that it is a possibility? Yes. Does that make me Q for thinking that or saying that out loud? In the current environment, maybe. Shhhh.... I’m not supposed to think, say or post such things. I have a HUGE problem with that.  

I've not heard that anyone said there weren't any problems whatsoever with this election. The sources I read say that there is always small scale fraud that is investigated, but that NONE of that was decision in this election.

And yes, there are backups for the backups as other posters stated--they have ways to count and recount when things get close, and those ways have been made more reliable after the hanging and pregnant chad chaos from years ago.

[Bootsie]

8 minutes ago, MercyA said:

Both.

I am curious as to which facts they have different.  Could you elaborate?  

 

[kbutton]

1 minute ago, Not_a_Number said:

Oh, I dunno. I personally use common sense. If someone lies to me about facts or times, I try to remember it. 

(Lots of people will get facts wrong if not everything is known. That's different than willfully misleading.) 

I tend to follow that definition, but I think that many people I know think they've used common sense, etc., and they are definitely espousing crazy. 

Maybe your point earlier on about what boundaries people put on their thinking is useful in combination with this. I didn't necessarily realize what my fixed point was beforehand, but I knew when it was crossed. Others that I thought, by virtue of having nearly identical values, would recognize this line, floated right over it. It was astonishing.

[Frances]

20 minutes ago, SKL said:

See, that fuss is a fringe thing.  Most people either accept it or really don't care.  Not that it even matters any more.  Bringing up stuff like this to prove that America can't engage in useful discourse today is illogical IMO.

Something repeatedly stated by our president is fringe? I wish, but unfortunately when he says something, no matter how untrue, a significant chunk of people believe it and spread it. That is just one of numerous examples.

And although I wish it were true as you stated above that the vast majority of Americans outside of the fringe share a basic set of facts, I strongly disagree. If it wasn’t obvious before 2020, it certainly is now. Just two among many example are the election and covid. Lies, disinformation, and propaganda are very, very effective when used repeatedly.
 

How many R leaders have come out and clearly told their constituents the presidential election was not stolen?  How many Americans believed the presidential election was stolen before the events of January 6th? At least for me, it’s hard to believe any elected official truly wants meaningful discourse on important matters if they can’t even tell the truth about something so central to our democracy.

[Garga]

15 minutes ago, Plum said:

So say I question the election results. Not because I’m Q or have really paid any attention to  anything the President has said about it, but because it doesn’t pass my bs detector. They are trying to tell me that we had the cleanest election ever while the Solarwinds hack had been happening under their noses all year? Those two things cannot exist in the same space in my opinion. If you take away the fact that the big bad orange man was saying this, the idea that there weren’t any problems whatsoever with this election and there was nothing to see here is magical thinking. Do I want it to be true? Nope. Can I hold in my head that it is a possibility? Yes. Does that make me Q for thinking that or saying that out loud? In the current environment, maybe. Shhhh.... I’m not supposed to think, say or post such things. I have a HUGE problem with that.  

Well, then you can question it, but investigate it. 

And yes, there were cases of fraud, but they were the normal cases of fraud that we see in every election. So, you have to ask, were there enough cases to overturn the election results?

And then you see what the judges of each of the cases (63 or 64 cases last time I looked) decided. They were able to look at all the evidence and state that the “evidence” wasn’t there.  

The burden of proof is on the party alleging the crime. So, you look at each instance, one-by-one, where they allege the crime and see if their proof is real. And, yes, at some point you have to trust the judges who had the most access to all the evidence, especially the ones who would be more inclined to want to overturn the election, as they’re Republicans.

[OH_Homeschooler]

1 hour ago, Bootsie said:

The people I know who are into conspiracy theories are PhDs in liberal arts areas.  They see that it fits in with their questioning, not taking specific answers, etc.  Some of them see the STEM people who are into hard science not able to think as deeply and critically as they are and to accept the answer that is given.  

I am not saying that I agree with them, but in my circle it isn't the STEM people who are conspiracy people--its the liberal arts people. 

Interesting, I have a PhD in the social sciences and none of my friends from grad school are into conspiracy theories. 

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, kbutton said:

I tend to follow that definition, but I think that many people I know think they've used common sense, etc., and they are definitely espousing crazy. 

Maybe your point earlier on about what boundaries people put on their thinking is useful in combination with this. I didn't necessarily realize what my fixed point was beforehand, but I knew when it was crossed. Others that I thought, by virtue of having nearly identical values, would recognize this line, floated right over it. It was astonishing.

I guess what I'm trying to come up is things people can actually USE to check whether sources are good. Because it's not reasonable to ask people to follow the sources WE have decided are good, as if we can dictate to them. That's patronizing. 

That's why I always suggest keeping track yourself of who you've found to be reliable. Take note of what they tell you. How often is it shown to have been misleading later? How often do they lie, possibly by omission? Basically, do they give you a reason to trust them, or do they not? 

My experiments with using these methods have definitely shifted my politics, I have to say. And this is despite the fact that I still think that questions like local vs. federal control are very interesting, and I'm perfectly undecided on how high taxes should be, and my opinions on cultural trends are all over the place and often lean conservative. 

[kbutton]

1 minute ago, Garga said:

The burden of proof is on the party alleging the crime.

And the burden of proof for court is not necessarily the same as the burden of proof to sway public opinion. People will float things in public that they can't say under oath. 

[Not_a_Number]

1 minute ago, OH_Homeschooler said:

Interesting, I have a PhD in the social sciences and none of my friends from grad school are into conspiracy theories. 

I have a math Ph.D and I also don't have conspiracy-minded friends, lol. This probably says more about us than about our Ph.Ds. 

[Frances]

1 hour ago, kand said:

Our checks and balances have failed catastrophically. I do very much hope the incoming congress will enact some new policies to try to prevent that from happening in the future. I believe even the incoming president has expressed a desire for changes that would put more limits on the power of a president so that this can’t ever happen again. I certainly hope it is achieved. I don’t know how to fix the system now being so partisan that congress works lockstep with the president when they are of the same party, no matter what. 

At least in regards to the election, our judiciary and many local and state elected officials held strong despite intense pressure. And for that I am eternally grateful. It’s one of the few things that continues to give me hope about our country.

[kbutton]

1 minute ago, Not_a_Number said:

I guess what I'm trying to come up is things people can actually USE to check whether sources are good. Because it's not reasonable to ask people to follow the sources WE have decided are good, as if we can dictate to them. That's patronizing. 

That's why I always suggest keeping track yourself of who you've found to be reliable. Take note of what they tell you. How often is it shown to have been misleading later? How often do they lie, possibly by omission? Basically, do they give you a reason to trust them, or do they not? 

My experiments with using these methods have definitely shifted my politics, I have to say. And this is despite the fact that I still think that questions like local vs. federal control are very interesting, and I'm perfectly undecided on how high taxes should be, and my opinions on cultural trends are all over the place and often lean conservative. 

I think this beyond a lot of people at this cultural moment. 

I thought this is what my friends and family did, but about five years ago, it's like they stopped and gave everything the benefit of the doubt.

[SKL]

33 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I'm really not a history buff, although perhaps that'll change after homeschooling, but I'm just asking: what is historically the role of the president? I don't think going back to what the Constitution says or doesn't say is fruitful. 

The Constitution is THE law about what the Prez does.

[frogger]

1 hour ago, Not_a_Number said:

Told by whom? Is that historically the role of the president? Because that sounds dubious to me. 

Told by Congress. They are the representatives of the people. There is no way one man can represent American opinions. They are supposed to represent the views of their constituents not their party. We have many historical warnings of parties taking over and representing their interests.

I'd say the power of the president definitely grew through the years but it escalated drastically after WW 2 and especially in the last 30 years. I really don't have time to go into all the details. It could be a whole thread.

[OH_Homeschooler]

1 minute ago, Not_a_Number said:

I have a math Ph.D and I also don't have conspiracy-minded friends, lol. This probably says more about us than about our Ph.Ds. 

I guess a lot of my thinking came from FB groups that I left. I was frequently baffled to learn that someone who was rabidly anti-mask, quoting crappy FB videos as their proof, were college graduates, many in fields like ag science, tech, physics, etc. (I know this thread is more about the insurrection but there is significant overlap between anti-maskers and insurrectionists so...)

Not to open a whole new can of worms but I eventually blocked a chiropractor husband of an old friend of mine on FB because he was the absolute worst posting anti-mask memes. He's also anti-vax etc., which is not uncommon among chiropractors. So I guess it's true that all the education in the world doesn't make someone smart. 

[Not_a_Number]

3 minutes ago, Plum said:

It’s not just Solarwinds, though States were compromised by the hack. It’s the hospital ransomware, the school ransomware and all of the other incidents. Cybercrime has never been as profitable as it was in 2020. But I’m not supposed to even entertain the idea that there wasn’t some type of fraud. 

https://statescoop.com/report-70-percent-of-ransomware-attacks-in-2019-hit-state-and-local-governments/?amp

Look I didn’t vote for Trump. I have no favorite team player. But look how all of you jumped all over me for even bringing it up. 

It's not jumping on you to ask you to provide evidence. If you have some evidence, please give some. But a general "things were hacked, so the election wasn't clean" statement is unfalsifiable. There's no way to judge that statement because it doesn't even try to provide evidence. 

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, OH_Homeschooler said:

I guess a lot of my thinking came from FB groups that I left. I was frequently baffled to learn that someone who was rabidly anti-mask, quoting crappy FB videos as their proof, were college graduates, many in fields like ag science, tech, physics, etc. (I know this thread is more about the insurrection but there is significant overlap between anti-maskers and insurrectionists so...)

I think there's a difference between college graduates and Ph.Ds, though. Having taught lots of science majors, some absolutely aren't good critical thinkers. And some are. It varies. 

But you can't get too far into a Ph.D without being able to think for yourself. 

 

Just now, OH_Homeschooler said:

Not to open a whole new can of worms but I eventually blocked a chiropractor husband of an old friend of mine on FB because he was the absolute worst posting anti-mask memes. He's also anti-vax etc., which is not uncommon among chiropractors. So I guess it's true that all the education in the world doesn't make someone smart. 

I don't know what training chiropractors get. Do you know? I'd be curious. 

[Pawz4me]

6 minutes ago, Plum said:

Look I didn’t vote for Trump. I have no favorite team player. But look how all of you jumped all over me for even bringing it up. 

I always fail to get this type of response. I think of it as a type of badly attempted martyrdom. If you (generic "you") post something that multiple people disagree with or you're asked for evidence to back up the claim(s) . . that's not at all the same thing as getting jumped on. Not at all.

ETA: It seems to me that this is essentially a poster saying "I want to express my opinion but I don't want anyone to disagree with me." That's not how adult conversation works, and it's certainly not how message boards with large numbers of people participating work.

Edited January 15, 2021 by Pawz4me

[Not_a_Number]

4 minutes ago, frogger said:

I'd say the power of the president definitely grew through the years but it escalated drastically after WW 2 and especially in the last 30 years.

I wonder how you'd measure "the power of the president," hmmm. The country and the government look totally different now than they did two centuries ago. 

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, Pawz4me said:

I always fail to get this type of response. I think of it as a type of badly attempted martyrdom. If you (generic "you") post something that multiple people disagree with and what you posted gets shot down or you're asked for evidence to back up the claim(s) . . that's not at all the same thing as getting jumped on. Not at all.

And it's often said by people who DO jump on one, and who DO engage in ad hominem attacks, lol. It's like there's no difference between "give us a reason to agree with you" and "you're a poopyhead." It literally doesn't register differently. 

[kbutton]

1 minute ago, Plum said:

It’s not just Solarwinds, though TX, AX and NC all we’re compromised by the hack. It’s the hospital ransomware, the school ransomware and all of the other incidents. Cybercrime has never been as profitable as it was in 2020. But I’m not supposed to even entertain the idea that there wasn’t some type of fraud. 

https://statescoop.com/report-70-percent-of-ransomware-attacks-in-2019-hit-state-and-local-governments/?amp

Look I didn’t vote for Trump. I have no favorite team player. But look how all of you jumped all over me for even bringing it up. 

I hope you don't think I jumped all over you. I pointed out that what you said was more definitive than anything I'd read. It's super easy for someone to hear "fraud" and assume it's widespread, and whether you are inclined to think that way or not, the people I know are. They don't stop and think about how little f fraud might not mean that capital F FRAUD is possible under same circumstances.

They also don't stop to think that if we found little fraud, it's way better than finding none in some ways. For example, there are certain roads I can drive on where I grew up, and during certain hours of the day, I am likely to see at least one deer. There are even roads where time of day doesn't matter--it's nearly guaranteed. If I drive up that latter road, and I don't see a deer, it freaks me out--I assume I'm not paying attention. On those roads, we literally have everyone in the car that is not driving playing lookout for deer (and we've never hit one, thank God).

At the same time, if I claimed to see 30 deer on any of those roads, I would assume someone baited them just for my benefit and then fenced them in. If I saw a dozen, I would think, "That's possible, but I bet it's rut season AND I drove the road at the perfect time of day for deer activity."

I think this is analogous to fraud.

[Not_a_Number]

7 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

I don't intend this to sound like an attack but everyone claims to use "common sense." What is "common sense" anyway? 

Well, it's certain uncommon, lol. 

But I think you can wind up going in circles trying to define everything. The best way to teach this stuff is to model it, I think, and to engage in respectful but challenging discussion with each other. 

People's reasoning is not naturally logical and it's not naturally linear. Getting it to be that way takes training, and some people take to it easier than other people. It's a real project. 

[SKL]

30 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Why are these related? 

 

OK, let's have some evidence something bad happened. Maybe it's just me, but I would expect that somewhere in 60 court cases we would have actual evidence, if this evidence existed. All we have is conspiracy theories and statements by people who talked to someone who talked to someone who saw something. 

Of course elections have been tampered with before. People want to win, so they cheat, lol. If you want this not to happen, you strengthen election security. For example, you can make sure there are backup paper ballots for all machine-cast ballots so that you can ACTUALLY check everything if you're worried about your machines. 

I haven't seen the cases or whatever evidence they did or didn't present.  However, I doubt there was literally zero evidence.  I think the reason they didn't move forward with at least some of the court cases was because they didn't consider it an appropriate venue for the argument, or appropriate parties, or some other procedural shortfall.

I think the truth is probably somewhere in between - that there was some evidence of some fraud, but it probably didn't rise to the level that was implied in the right wing messaging to everyday Americans.

The problem IMO wasn't that there were challenges, but that some voices blew it out of proportion and made promises they couldn't keep, which riled up certain vulnerable people.

But yes, I do believe we need to address election reform.  I hope that the events of the past 8 days don't distract Americans too much from that need.

[Katy]

4 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

It's not jumping on you to ask you to provide evidence. If you have some evidence, please give some. But a general "things were hacked, so the election wasn't clean" statement is unfalsifiable. There's no way to judge that statement because it doesn't even try to provide evidence. 

Not to mention we frequently reject information without evidence on this board.  It isn't "jumping all over" someone to say "don't provide false information without evidence when people are trying to start a civil war over something a narcissist made up."

[frogger]

I will add that each state is responsible for their vote. A sitting President trying to change electoral votes is a huge breach of norms. Each state should look at their own election process to make sure it's fair.  If the Feds take over the process that simply gives them more control.

[kbutton]

3 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

And it's often said by people who DO jump on one, and who DO engage in ad hominem attacks, lol. It's like there's no difference between "give us a reason to agree with you" and "you're a poopyhead." It literally doesn't register differently. 

Plum is not a pot-stirrer, though I agree with the assessment much of the time.

[Katy]

1 minute ago, SKL said:

I haven't seen the cases or whatever evidence they did or didn't present.  However, I doubt there was literally zero evidence.  I think the reason they didn't move forward with at least some of the court cases was because they didn't consider it an appropriate venue for the argument, or appropriate parties, or some other procedural shortfall.

I think the truth is probably somewhere in between - that there was some evidence of some fraud, but it probably didn't rise to the level that was implied in the right wing messaging to everyday Americans.

The problem IMO wasn't that there were challenges, but that some voices blew it out of proportion and made promises they couldn't keep, which riled up certain vulnerable people.

But yes, I do believe we need to address election reform.  I hope that the events of the past 8 days don't distract Americans too much from that need.

I did look up the cases.  I looked up every one. There was zero evidence.  In many cases the judges literally laughed them out of court.  There were a few people who publicly complained, but then their story was proven false and they recanted.  There were a few people who misinterpreted the way votes should be counted.  There were a few people who complained COVID restrictions didn't allow the EXTRA people from the republican side to see the votes clearly enough.  Only the latter group was found to have anything credible to complain about at all.  The votes didn't change.

In some states (Wisconsin) where there are rules that an attorney can suffer extreme fines and other punitive damages for ridiculous lawsuits, the suits were dropped before that deadline.

[Pawz4me]

1 minute ago, Katy said:

I did look up the cases.  I looked up every one. There was zero evidence.  In many cases the judges literally laughed them out of court.  There were a few people who publicly complained, but then their story was proven false and they recanted.  There were a few people who misinterpreted the way votes should be counted.  There were a few people who complained COVID restrictions didn't allow the EXTRA people from the republican side to see the votes clearly enough.  Only the latter group was found to have anything credible to complain about at all.  The votes didn't change.

In some states (Wisconsin) where there are rules that an attorney can suffer extreme fines and other punitive damages for ridiculous lawsuits, the suits were dropped before that deadline.

Yeah, a lot of those rulings made for entertaining reading. And that's not something one often says about the courts.

[Moonhawk]

33 minutes ago, Plum said:

So say I question the election results. Not because I’m Q or have really paid any attention to  anything the President has said about it, but because it doesn’t pass my bs detector. They are trying to tell me that we had the cleanest election ever while the Solarwinds hack had been happening under their noses all year? Those two things cannot exist in the same space in my opinion. If you take away the fact that the big bad orange man was saying this, the idea that there weren’t any problems whatsoever with this election and there was nothing to see here is magical thinking. Do I want it to be true? Nope. Can I hold in my head that it is a possibility? Yes. Does that make me Q for thinking that or saying that out loud? In the current environment, maybe. Shhhh.... I’m not supposed to think, say or post such things. I have a HUGE problem with that.  

Okay, I actually don't have a problem with you posting it *like this* because you give at least a nominal reasoning for your concerns. You point out a precedence of hacks that have happened recently. Moreover, your question has a way of being checked. Because you have *doubt*, that is asking for evidence, not a *conviction*.

So, I would point out as someone else already has, that we have individual state elections, so we could focus on the ones that you seem most suspicious. Then go through voter logs, look at the different checks they used, we could read the statement and steps taken by the one guy that was in charge of cybersecurity during the election and said there was a safe election (who was fired? or resigned? soon after). 

IOW, we can address and investigate your concerns. At the end, though I would hope that if the overwhelming evidence points to no issue, you could accept it. 

The problem I have seen now is that people are refusing to accept evidence that goes against conviction. That is when it crosses into conspiracy.

I know I don't speak for everyone on this, and I do agree that the stifling of questions like this is longterm bad; but I find that people are tired of dealing with these questions when they are consistently from the friend or relative who won't believe anything you say that goes against their view. For me, it's not the question that bothers me, it's the attitude and the presumption that there can't be a logical explanation or evidence to the contrary --> it's not a question, it's an implication posing as a question just to get you to engage.

[Not_a_Number]

2 minutes ago, Plum said:

You are proving my point that I’m not allowed to even bring up even the possibility, to just hold that thought in my head and say it out loud. 

You can bring it up. But I'd at least want some theory of how this cybercrime worked and not a general aura of "there are hacks, therefore nothing can be trusted." 

But the real problem is that it doesn't bother YOU that you don't have a theory that you can test. You're suspicious, and that's enough for you. You don't feel any impetus to figure out whether it's true or not or to make a falsifiable theory. 

Theories should be testable. Otherwise, you get stuck in "we know nothing, so I may as well go with what my biases tell me." 

[Not_a_Number]

1 minute ago, Moonhawk said:

So, I would point out as someone else already has, that we have individual state elections, so we could focus on the ones that you seem most suspicious. Then go through voter logs, look at the different checks they used, we could read the statement and steps taken by the one guy that was in charge of cybersecurity during the election and said there was a safe election (who was fired? or resigned? soon after). 

IOW, we can address and investigate your concerns. At the end, though I would hope that if the overwhelming evidence points to no issue, you could accept it. 

Right. If you make a detailed enough theory, then it's FALSIFIABLE. It can be proved wrong or right.

[frogger]

2 hours ago, Not_a_Number said:

And I think the only way to agree on a set of shared facts is for people to stop being so gullible, lol. 

For what it's worth, I know plenty of people who would vote like I do who are just as gullible as the opposite side. They just happened to have picked people I agree with to be their prophets. 

I think some of these ideas would be interesting threads but I have to teach a class soon. I'll try to bookmark your article but I will leave you with an Adam Smith quote, " Every faculty in one man is the measure by which he judges the like faculty in another. I judge of your sight by my sight, of your ear by my ear, of your reason by my reason, of your resentment by my resentment, of your reason by my reason, of your love by my love. I neither have, nor can have, any other way of judging about them"  The Theory of Moral Sentiments~Adam Smith

[kbutton]

1 minute ago, Plum said:

Yes. How dare I even bring up the notion that cybercrime is a problem and could have the potential for bad election results. I must provide proof even though I said it didn’t pass my BS detector and that it was all my opinion. You are proving my point that I’m not allowed to even bring up even the possibility, to just hold that thought in my head and say it out loud. 

I would guess that cybercrime and election fraud have different goals, methods, motivations, and perpetrators. 

I had my home computer hacked a few weeks ago, and I am neither rich nor famous. My credit cards are compromised almost yearly, and sometimes the bank notices before I do.

I can't assume from my hack that I am rich or interesting, lol! I might be able to assume someone knows I have a good credit rating and wants to use it. 

I can't assume if my computer was hacked, so were the computers of everyone on the street.

At the same time, if certain facts were changed, I might be able to assume any of those things individually or in some combination. 

I don't think one kind of cybercrime means another is just as likely, just because it was a bad year for one of those kinds of cybercrime. If we found widespread fraud, then looking to other types of cybercrime for the methods used to perpetrate it makes sense to me though. But I don't think that thinking can always be bi-directional. I think there needs to be a larger reason to go bigger.

I think people could engage with what you said more, and doing so would seem less like an attack when they point out something about your post.

[SKL]

9 minutes ago, frogger said:

I will add that each state is responsible for their vote. A sitting President trying to change electoral votes is a huge breach of norms. Each state should look at their own election process to make sure it's fair.  If the Feds take over the process that simply gives them more control.

Yes, this is what I was gonna say too.  The last thing we want to do is put elections under the Federal government.  The Feds already have too much power over it IMO.  Americans need to work on this project at the state level.

[Katy]

I looked up the cases using something on the Washington Post that's probably now behind a paywall.  Someone has now compiled the same information on Wikipedia.  Here you go, find your evidence of fraud.  Chances are instead of fraud you'll instead find appalling acts of racism, but it's easy to see the evidence (or lack thereof) linked from this page:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-election_lawsuits_related_to_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election

[SKL]

9 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

You can bring it up. But I'd at least want some theory of how this cybercrime worked and not a general aura of "there are hacks, therefore nothing can be trusted." 

But the real problem is that it doesn't bother YOU that you don't have a theory that you can test. You're suspicious, and that's enough for you. You don't feel any impetus to figure out whether it's true or not or to make a falsifiable theory. 

Theories should be testable. Otherwise, you get stuck in "we know nothing, so I may as well go with what my biases tell me." 

Floating an idea to see if it gets caught in the wind is the start of much positive movement.

I venture a guess that you've floated some ideas without proof more than once.

Plum wasn't telling folks to get armed and go shoot people.  She was just saying hey, this looks suspicious.  This doesn't meet my smell test.  Maybe some others, seeing that, would respond in good faith - I agree because __ / I disagree because ___ / interesting comment, I'll give it some thought.  The idea that this kind of dialogue is intolerable is concerning.

[SKL]

3 minutes ago, Katy said:

I looked up the cases using something on the Washington Post that's probably now behind a paywall.  Someone has now compiled the same information on Wikipedia.  Here you go, find your evidence of fraud.  Chances are instead of fraud you'll instead find appalling acts of racism, but it's easy to see the evidence (or lack thereof) linked from this page:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-election_lawsuits_related_to_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election

You can stop attacking me now.

[Katy]

Oh yes, and just in case anyone wants to argue that it's impossible for Trump to have falsely claimed election fraud, lawsuits cost a lot of money, here's why:  Trump's campaign collected more than $495 MILLION from claiming election fraud.  Money that he can now use to do anything he wants with.  That's far more than was donated when he was actually running for re-election.  https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/blog/meet-press-blog-latest-news-analysis-data-driving-political-discussion-n988541/ncrd1250011#blogHeader

[kbutton]

23 minutes ago, Katy said:

 There were a few people who misinterpreted the way votes should be counted. 

I see as much misinterpretation of facts (not just about the election) as I do misleading information, and some of it is from people who should know better. It's very disingenuous. 

If we go with Not_a_Number's reliability/common sense theory, this might be an example of someone suspending common sense because they like the outcome. But at some point, doing this repeatedly makes them unreliable. 

In cases like that, I tend to notice this kind of unreliability if I disagree with them about something we should theoretically agree about, and then I start getting suspicious.

20 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

You can bring it up. But I'd at least want some theory of how this cybercrime worked and not a general aura of "there are hacks, therefore nothing can be trusted." 

But the real problem is that it doesn't bother YOU that you don't have a theory that you can test. You're suspicious, and that's enough for you. You don't feel any impetus to figure out whether it's true or not or to make a falsifiable theory. 

Theories should be testable. Otherwise, you get stuck in "we know nothing, so I may as well go with what my biases tell me." 

I don't think the bolded is necessarily true. I think she made an equivalence that could be true under some circumstances. Teasing that out in a thread where we are already conjecturing about something (why people believe crazy) is not over the top. We just aren't conjecturing about the same things Plum mentioned.

I think it's very easy to think cybercrime/hacking = cybercrime/hacking because it's such an invisible crime. It's behind the scenes, widespread, intimidating, and groups who want power do it to each other. 

Making a falsifiable theory is a learned skill, and I can guarantee that most of us are better at it in some context than in others. 

That's not to jump on you either, but to say that not everyone is equally good at this all the time even if they can do it.

**ETA: My life experience limits what I can conjecture about reliably. I can give you pretty good ideas of what is safe/unsafe about living in a small town in a rural area, but my city dwelling skills are nonexistent, and you'd think I have no common sense if you observed them in action.

Edited January 15, 2021 by kbutton

[Katy]

Just now, SKL said:

You can stop attacking me now.

Providing easily linked evidence that what you claim is false isn't attacking you. 

[SanDiegoMom]

8 minutes ago, kbutton said:

I would guess that cybercrime and election fraud have different goals, methods, motivations, and perpetrators. 

I don't think one kind of cybercrime means another is just as likely, just because it was a bad year for one of those kinds of cybercrime. If we found widespread fraud, then looking to other types of cybercrime for the methods used to perpetrate it makes sense to me though. But I don't think that thinking can always be bi-directional. I think there needs to be a larger reason to go bigger.

I think people could engage with what you said more, and doing so would seem less like an attack when they point out something about your post.

I am just jumping in here to mention that type of thinking has been pretty noticeable to me in the last few years --  and we have two examples in this thread.  The idea is put out that there is election fraud, there are plentiful reports (and independent bystanders, and recounts, etc) done that point out there is little to no election fraud, one proof is found that computers were targeted that belonged to state and local governments which proves that there has or could be election fraud.  

Or there is found to be a small amount of ballots that were fraudulently cast and therefore that is the case for election fraud.  There seems to be no ability to assess accurately the scope and proof of the argument, only that there is any type of evidence refuting so it must be true.

 

This occured with a family member recently who only ingests certain news.  She posts regularly from websites which have consistently gotten facts or entire stories wrong.  Then recently (and pointedly) posted an article from the Atlantic that had a lengthy retraction, saying how obvious all media is slanted, biased, and wrong.  Depsite the fact that the lengthy retraction explained in detail the error, why they were retracting but leaving it up to show the error, and explaining that the journalist had been fired.  As if those two types of circumstances are equal -- one that consistently posts blatantly false information with a clear bias, and one that works consistently hard to fact check and stand by the integrity of their work and are willing to admit when they are wrong.  

 

[SKL]

4 minutes ago, Katy said:

Providing easily linked evidence that what you claim is false isn't attacking you. 

I didn't make a claim, and your tone was an attacking tone.  I won't get to whether or not your link is appropriate to address the topic being discussed.

[GoodGrief3]

10 minutes ago, SKL said:

Floating an idea to see if it gets caught in the wind is the start of much positive movement.

I venture a guess that you've floated some ideas without proof more than once.

 

Intuition is a gift. Not in the supernatural sense, but in the ability to broadly read people and situations. The intuitive can get us asking the questions and searching out the evidence. They also befuddle those who lack that ability.

Edited January 15, 2021 by GoodGrief3

[elegantlion]

3 hours ago, OH_Homeschooler said:

I definitely get that there will be individual differences, and people with a certain mindset will lean toward certain fields.

I went to a liberal arts college, and earned degrees in a "soft" science so I feel strongly that you can learn how to think critically, regardless of your natural thought orientation. I think there should be a class all undergrads would take along the lines of "Evaluating Evidence." Wouldn't that be amazing? It wouldn't necessarily change anyone's way of thinking, just get them to understand how different types of evidence would lead to different kinds of conclusions. 

The field of history is about evaluating evidence. Every semester, I guide undergraduates on analyzing primary sources, which is really about evaluating the evidence given. They learn skills that I remind them they can use to evaluate modern sources. 

History is not just facts, events and heck even dates in some cases, are subjective. I study medieval European history and you would think that field would be exhausted in the study of it. It's not. New evaluations of old sources, new sources being discovered, even archaeological evidence being discussed rewrites history. 

In the 60s and 70s when women started studying medieval history more, they were able to find the powerful women that previous generations of scholars said didn't exist because those scholars had ignored, overlooked, or undervalued the evidence they had. 

2 hours ago, SKL said:

I know one of my daughters' 9th grade history teachers started the year with that kind of discussion.  I was very glad to hear that.

That is, in essence, what historians do, and at least in my circle, what we try to teach students. 

[Katy]

3 minutes ago, SKL said:

I didn't make a claim, and your tone was an attacking tone.  I won't get to whether or not your link is appropriate to address the topic being discussed.

You literally claimed that you doubted there was zero evidence, but everything was thrown out for procedural reasons.  You made a very easily disputable claim at the top of this page, and you admitted that you hadn't bothered to look any of it up but that didn't matter.  As the OP of this thread, I think I am fully capable of deciding whether providing evidence that what you claimed is demonstrably false is appropriate to the topic being discussed in my own thread. I have repeatedly stated I am fine with correcting false information in this thread.  If you want to go debate the merits of whether demonstrably false intuition should be an excuse for attacking democracy, go do that in your own thread.  

[Garga]

14 minutes ago, Plum said:

Right because I’m an expert hacker that can lay out theories on how to hack an election. 

Just this year a hospital chain near and dear to my heart was a victim of the “largest ransomware attack in US history”. 40k computers needed to be reimaged. Only a few months later the same thing was said about the Russian state-sponsored Solarwinds hack with the freaking Pentagon, WH and State Departments hacked along with Microsoft and so many others they are still trying to figure it out. 

Sure. I’ll get right on that proof. 
“Most secure Presidential  election in US history” doesn’t smell right. 

No one attacked you. You didn’t say whether or not you believed that the election was hacked.  In your original post, you said, “Ok, so say I think X...”. 

It sounded like you were posing a hypothetical question about what steps a person could take if they suspect a problem. In my post and in other people’s posts, I stated what steps could be taken (look at the evidence for yourself.)

I never said you had to provide proof of election fraud, but I suggested that you go and read the evidence provided by the people legally alleging the fraud. 

I don’t see people jumping on you. I see them all answering your question about what a person could do if they thought there was fraud—you were asking how one would know if there was fraud or not.  And you received many answers to that question of how one could research the topic. No one said you weren’t allowed to think the thought or ask the question.  But you asked the question and we answered.

 

The reason they call it the most secure presidential election in US history is because Trump made all sorts of statements about fraud before the election, so election officials beefed up their security. And then afterwards things were investigated and looked over again and again and any and all evidence was investigated and votes were recounted in various places.

Pretty sure no other election has had so many eyes on it, therefore it was the “most secure presidential election in US history.”

[Moonhawk]

6 minutes ago, Plum said:

Right because I’m an expert hacker that can lay out theories on how to hack an election. 

Just this year a hospital chain near and dear to my heart was a victim of the “largest ransomware attack in US history”. 40k computers needed to be reimaged. Only a few months later the same thing was said about the Russian state-sponsored Solarwinds hack with the freaking Pentagon, WH and State Departments hacked along with Microsoft and so many others they are still trying to figure it out. 

Sure. I’ll get right on that proof. 
“Most secure Presidential  election in US history” doesn’t smell right. 

Wait wait wait. We were just talking about evidence and questions. Let's keep it there! Don't jump away from fact-sleuthing because you don't like the smell!! Come back to me!!

We've gone from

"There have been hacks of other things in the past so is it possible the election was hacked?"

to

"A hospital I know was hacked. Lots of big companies and government systems have been hacked. So it is suspicious to me that the election wasn't hacked."

That is a HUGE difference of approach. You are going into one looking for answers to a question, and the other you are priming yourself to be suspicious of anything that does not confirm your suspicion. You are going in to prove you were correct that it was hacked.

WHY doesn't "most secure presidential election in US history" not smell right? Put it into words. If you have a sincere doubt, let's name it! Let's get it on the table! People have been scouring this topic for months so I'm sure we can find something to address it.

[Not_a_Number]

28 minutes ago, Plum said:

“Most secure Presidential  election in US history” doesn’t smell right. 

What would convince you it was secure? 

[SKL]

11 minutes ago, Katy said:

You literally claimed that you doubted there was zero evidence, but everything was thrown out for procedural reasons.  You made a very easily disputable claim at the top of this page, and you admitted that you hadn't bothered to look any of it up but that didn't matter.  As the OP of this thread, I think I am fully capable of deciding whether providing evidence that what you claimed is demonstrably false is appropriate to the topic being discussed in my own thread. I have repeatedly stated I am fine with correcting false information in this thread.  If you want to go debate the merits of whether demonstrably false intuition should be an excuse for attacking democracy, go do that in your own thread.  

So now a doubt is a claim?

I never said "everything."

I was honest about not having provable facts ... but I've been alive in the USA for long enough to know how things work.  It is really very unlikely that the vote in every state was 100% fraud-free.  I don't need to prove that, just like I don't need to prove that some of the people on this thread are biased.

As for the rest of it, you are fully entitled to your feelings and your opinion about me and everything else.  It would be nice if you kept it civil, but I guess that's up to you.

[Moonhawk]

52 minutes ago, Plum said:

Yes. How dare I even bring up the notion that cybercrime is a problem and could have the potential for bad election results. I must provide proof even though I said it didn’t pass my BS detector and that it was all my opinion. You are proving my point that I’m not allowed to even bring up even the possibility, to just hold that thought in my head and say it out loud. 

What am I, chopped liver? Am I posting into the void? I'm sincerely trying to engage and show how we can constructively investigate "the possibility" so you don't hold it in your head. I am not asking you to provide proof, I am giving the space to address this "possibility"  and how to either prove or disprove your opinion and address your BS-o-meter with facts.

What am I doing wrong?!