Election results discussion thread (and sadly the inevitable aftermath)

[Houseman]

The big issue this overlooks is that his behaviour is not limited to this topic. Essentially every topic he engages in, he's "that guy", the contrarian, the devils advocate, the "Oh this minor technicality is flawed, so everything is flawed".

He likes to argue? Fine. There are many places to do that. He chooses to make a place that is often discussing racism, sexism, bigotry, etc his playground. Then, because it's where the action is, he takes the contrarian stance.

I wonder if, on a conservative forum, a liberal would be called a "contrarian" for being the one with the different opinion?
"You're morally bankrupt, you lib, because we conservatives are over here talking about our problems and you have to be the one to disagree with us!"

 

[Mister Mumbler]

I wonder if, on a conservative forum, a liberal would be called a "contrarian" for being the one with the different opinion?
"You're morally bankrupt, you lib, because we conservatives are over here talking about our problems and you have to be the one to disagree with us!"

 

[Avnger]

I wonder if, on a conservative forum, a liberal would be called a "contrarian" for being the one with the different opinion?
"You're morally bankrupt, you lib, because we conservatives are over here talking about our problems and you have to be the one to disagree with us!"

Pro-tip: If you're trying to claim victimhood, maybe don't have posts in your history that directly contradict your narrative.

Maybe you need the reminder, again, but this isn't a chan board. We can all simply click on your name and see everything you've written.

 

[Houseman]

Pro-tip: If you're trying to claim victimhood, maybe don't have posts in your history that directly contradict your narrative.

Maybe you need the reminder, again, but this isn't a chan board. We can all simply click on your name and see everything you've written.

And what posts would you present of evidence of whatever crime I am accused of?
"Exhibit A, where he disagrees with us! The horror!"

 

[Agema]

I say I've met the burden, and then some.

No, what you've compiled is a morass of varied complaints most of which have no established veracity or reliability, mostly ripped wholesale off the least reliable media with no analysis or skepticism, swirled together in a chaotic mess. Characteristic of this folderol is the swtiching between electoral jurisdictions such as MI, PA and GA to make your points, despite them all being independent circumstances and systems. In no small part this unstructured mess is because you lack the competence to apply any meaningful discernment to and filter out the rubbish.

In effect, it is hundreds of posts of flinging mud at a wall in the hope some of sticks, and the only burden you've met is the weight of mud you've flung.

 

[Agema]

Then we are in total agreement.

I let this slide at the time, but I think this might be a good time to go back.

No, we are not in agreement. The point I am making is that media is biased in a way that we can analyse and criticise, and compensate for to come to a decent standard of understanding. You use the accusation of media bias as a blunt ad hominem and intellectual laziness: to ignore what you don't like, whilst simultaneously justifying uncritically deploying the most biased and least reliable information available. That's what most of your points in this thread are: information warfare tactics, not a structured argument.

 

[Hades]

The stop the steal campaign is purely a matter of honest principle. Its not just a way for Trump to steal the election, its about what's fair. Trump and everyone on his side would be just as angry if Trump won through these alleged misdeeds.

So now it turns out Trump was begging Republicans to just find more votes for him and ''recalculate'' the votes that were already counted.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

What a fucking loser.

 

[tippy2k2]

The stop the steal campaign is purely a matter of honest principle. Its not just a way for Trump to steal the election, its about what's fair. Trump and everyone on his side would be just as angry if Trump won through these alleged misdeeds.

So now it turns out Trump was begging Republicans to just find more votes for him and ''recalculate'' the votes that were already counted.

 

[Trunkage]

And sleepy has been used to attack a man. Is it a gender specific term, then? No, of course not, both sexes can be sleepy. Both sexes can be tossed into a van like a side of beef. There's nothing gendered about either of those terms.

Show me where some male has been thrown into a van and then memes happened about being a side of beef.

It doesnt HAVE to be gendered. But it has been.

It's like you guys actively seek out things to be offended by, even if you have to squint to see it. "Hey, that cloud looks kind of like a dick!"

How am I offended?

 

[SilentPony]

SNIP

No correct me if I'm wrong, but that seems to be a textbook case of voter...fraud? Demanding more votes just be added to the tally.

 

[Avnger]

No correct me if I'm wrong, but that seems to be a textbook case of voter...fraud? Demanding more votes just be added to the tally.

Technically, I think this would be election fraud since it's not voters doing it.

Though Trump did commit voter fraud personally by voting in the Florida election from an ineligible address.

 

[Houseman]

The stop the steal campaign is purely a matter of honest principle. Its not just a way for Trump to steal the election, its about what's fair. Trump and everyone on his side would be just as angry if Trump won through these alleged misdeeds.

So now it turns out Trump was begging Republicans to just find more votes for him and ''recalculate'' the votes that were already counted.

Oh, we're doing out-of-context sound-bites that supposedly reveal everything?

Well then I respectfully present this for consideration:

"We have put together, I think, the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics" - Joe Biden

No, what you've compiled is a morass of varied complaints most of which have no established veracity or reliability

"Established", is a very telling word, I think. Established by who? By the defendants? By media fact-checkers?

I agree, nothing has been "established" because nobody in a position of authority is evaluating the claims based on the merits, but instead, are hiding behind technicalities like "lack of standing" or "too late" or "we don't have the authority".

Characteristic of this folderol is the swtiching between electoral jurisdictions such as MI, PA and GA to make your points, despite them all being independent circumstances and systems.

Isn't that what you and others do when attempting to justify BLM? You point to something that happened in Minneapolis, then Atlanta, then Oakland, and you present that as evidence that police brutality and racism is widespread and systematic, despite them all being independent circumstances and systems.

Stones, glass houses, pot, kettle, etc.

Show me where some male has been thrown into a van and then memes happened about being a side of beef.

Show me where some woman has been sleepy and then memes happened about her being sleepy. SEE?!?!?! SLEEPY IS A GENDERED INSULT!!!111!
No, it doesn't work that way. That's not how you determine whether or not an insult is gendered. You're using inductive reasoning instead of deductive reasoning.

Looking at 10 white swans and declaring that all swans are white is an example of faulty inductive reasoning. Black swans exist. But you don't know that, and you're just extrapolating based on a pattern. Saying "show me a black swan or else all swans are white" is invalid logic.

But if you really wanted to find out, you'd probably have to talk to the LEO who used the term. Maybe, in his culture, he uses that phrase all the time. Have you ever heard the phrase "tossed like a side of beef" in any other context before? I certainly haven't.

Just googling the phrase, I found this line from a book called "Gnome Home Papers" from 2012, in which the protagonist, a male, speaks about how he was treated

Gnome Home Papers

Listen my friends, to your heart. What is it telling you? Go ahead and dream a little dream, see where it takes you. YouÊll be surprised at the turn of events with every page, each new friend or what happens to that nasty evil guy. Take that chance and let your heart take the lead, I dare you...

books.google.com

So there you go, you are now doubly wrong, one for using invalid logic, and also factually wrong that the term is gendered as proven by usage.

 

[SilentPony]

Technically, I think this would be election fraud since it's not voters doing it.

Though Trump did commit voter fraud personally by voting in the Florida election from an ineligible address.

Oh I don't think I had heard that one. I'm guessing he listed Mara Lago, the private resort that's not a residence for tax reasons, as his residence.

 

[Avnger]

Oh I don't think I had heard that one. I'm guessing he listed Mara Lago, the private resort that's not a residence for tax reasons, as his residence.

That's exactly it. Either tax fraud or voter fraud; no way around it.

 

[SilentPony]

That's exactly it. Either tax fraud or voter fraud; no way around it.

Didn't Tony Schwartz say something along the line of Trump blames people for crimes he's done, because he's not mentally capable of understanding people who don't commit crimes? Like in his mind everyone commits tax and/or election fraud, so he's just playing by the rules.

 

[Trunkage]

Show me where some woman has been sleepy and then memes happened about her being sleepy. SEE?!?!?! SLEEPY IS A GENDERED INSULT!!!111!
No, it doesn't work that way. That's not how you determine whether or not an insult is gendered. You're using inductive reasoning instead of deductive reasoning.

Looking at 10 white swans and declaring that all swans are white is an example of faulty inductive reasoning. Black swans exist. But you don't know that, and you're just extrapolating based on a pattern. Saying "show me a black swan or else all swans are white" is invalid logic.
.

Hey Houseman. Are there orange swans? No one has ever seen one but they COULD exist. We just haven't seen it yet

So using the terms black and white swans is faulty logic

Edit: snip mistake

 

[Agema]

"Established", is a very telling word, I think. Established by who? By the defendants? By media fact-checkers?

Do you understand the difference between someone who thinks something looks suspicious (especially if they have been primed to think things are suspicious) and something actually being wrong? There's quite a big gap between the two.

I suppose that makes you an enthusiastic supporter the police stopping and harassing black people. As long as the police think there's something suspicious, then it's prime facie evidence that black person's is a criminal who needs to be vigorously checked out.

I agree, nothing has been "established" because nobody in a position of authority is evaluating the claims based on the merits, but instead, are hiding behind technicalities like "lack of standing" or "too late" or "we don't have the authority".

Firstly, what you call technicalities, I call the law. You're very keen on what the law precisely is when you want to defend the rights of right-wing kids to shoot lefties.

"Lack of standing" is a actually a convenience for the people bringing the suit to see that the bullshit they've packaged never gets tested. And that's because it's a PR show. If the only problem is "lack of standing", all they need do is take the entire suit and drop in in the lap of an entity that does have standing. Have they? No? Why not? Because the intent isn't to bring a real suit, it's an attempt to trick gullible people into thinking there's a real case and a biased judiciary won't let it be heard.

Like I said, Trump, as head of the executive, literally has the power to direct various bodies and agencies to vigorously investigate potential wrongdoing. He either has not exercised this power, or these agencies cannot find a problem. And that means the conspiracy now extends to include a host of entire government agencies and personnel, as well as the judiciary, the Democrats, election officials, and even a load of Republicans themselves.

Isn't that what you and others do when attempting to justify BLM? You point to something that happened in Minneapolis, then Atlanta, then Oakland, and you present that as evidence that police brutality and racism is widespread and systematic, despite them all being independent circumstances and systems.

Stones, glass houses, pot, kettle, etc.

Police brutality occurring in multiple places pretty much is the working definition of it being widespread, isn't it?

But you are throwing a massive load of accusations against multiple states without ever actually building a state by state case - such as being challenged about claims in one state and effectively defendiing your case with evidence from another.

 

[Hades]

Oh, we're doing out-of-context sound-bites that supposedly reveal everything?

Personally I can't think of any contest that wouldn't make Donald sound hypocritical and hopelessly pathetic when he says that.

 

[Houseman]

Hey Houseman. Are there orange swans? No one has ever seen one but they COULD exist. We just haven't seen it yet

So using the terms black and white swans is faulty logic

A) I don't know, I'm not a swan expert.
B) Just using the terms "white swans" and "black swans" is not "faulty logic". There's no logic inherent in those two terms. It's just a noun and an adjective.
C) This isn't a counter-argument. The failings of inductive reasoning have been established for longer than either of us have been alive. You're not going to be the one to overturn the basic principles of logic, especially not on a video game forum.

I suppose that makes you an enthusiastic supporter the police stopping and harassing black people. As long as the police think there's something suspicious, then it's prime facie evidence that black person's is a criminal who needs to be vigorously checked out.

Yes, I generally have no problems with the police doing their jobs.

Speaking of being "primed to think...", haven't certain groups been sowing discord and priming you and others to think that black people are being unfairly harassed? You're primed to see racism, so that's what you see.

Firstly, what you call technicalities, I call the law. You're very keen on what the law precisely is when you want to defend the rights of right-wing kids to shoot lefties.

See above. Where you see racist harassment, I see the police doing their jobs. Stones, glass houses, pot, kettle, etc.
I think we both know that the justice system is not either all good or all bad. We both know that at certain points during the process, certain individuals have the authority to use their tools, either a firearm or a gavel, for better or worse, and then leave the fallout for tomorrow.

Like I said, Trump, as head of the executive, literally has the power to direct various bodies and agencies to vigorously investigate potential wrongdoing. He either has not exercised this power, or these agencies cannot find a problem.

Or he does not have the power you think he does. Which bodies and agencies do you think he has at his beck and call? Certainly not the FBI, because he's said on Twitter, "where is the FBI?"

Police brutality occurring in multiple places pretty much is the working definition of it being widespread, isn't it?

So if it's widespread for you, then it's widespread for me. If the election had problems and fraud in multiple places, then it's widespread fraud.
Widespread is widespread.