Politics
For civil discussion of US politics. Be excellent to each other.
Rule 1: Posts have the following requirements:
▪️ Post articles about the US only
▪️ Title must match the article headline
▪️ Recent (Past 30 Days)
▪️ No Screenshots/links to other social media sites or link shorteners
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. One or two small paragraphs are okay.
Rule 3: Articles based on opinion (unless clearly marked and from a serious publication), misinformation or propaganda will be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, ableist, will be removed.
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a jerk. It’s not acceptable to say another user is a jerk. Cussing is fine.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Media owners, CEOs and/or board members
view the rest of the comments
So misinformation is different from disinformation.
One of the hallmarks of disinformation is that someone knows they're being dishonest, and trying to engineer a particular result.
One example is just being totally uninterested in someone who points out that one of your sources is literally making up numbers, and instead going HAM on the original narrative. Throw in some random ad hominem "you may be tired and defeatist" "you just want to give up and let this be over," and continue the conversation indefinitely just repeating the original narrative any number of times to put it out there as legit point of view, and you've got yourself a recipe for adding a new narrative artificially into everyone's social media.
I have no idea if you're doing that, or if it's just a happy accident that you're doing what that would look like. As I said, recounts sound great. As I said, which you seem to be now acknowledging, there's no real indication of fraud in 2024, just the fact that out of an abundance of caution, auditing the election carefully would be a great idea.
I don't have much to disagree with out of your most recent message, and it doesn't seem you're interested in doing much more than repeating your narrative and sprinkling in some emotionally laden ad hominem, so I think I'll discontinue now.
"So misinformation is different from disinformation."
that's correct.
"I have no idea if you're doing that"
I'm not, I'm just working through all the baseless deniers pretty quickly here, so I'm not giving you the attention maybe you think you deserve?
"you seem to be now acknowledging, there's no real indication of fraud in 2024,"
nope, you got this incorrect also.
because we know the fake electro scheme occurred and Trump tried to fabricate votes in Georgia for years ago (these are two separate incidents of electoral fraud that indisputably occurred), then 2 years later we know because they admitted it, that Trump's lawyers hired people to steal voting software that was used by 90% of voters in swing States in this election, those multiple instances of specifically criminal vote manipulation is at least circumstantial evidence for vote manipulation occurring this year as well.
you have a problem with this one other scientist, so again try to stick to the facts.
or write that once I had testimony and letter, but then listen to all the other computer. scientists who are telling you that the voting machines Trump's team has had access to for 3 years could easily have been manipulated and they literally tried to steal the election 4 years ago and Trump literally tried to fabricate votes four years ago.
4 years ago was the last presidential election in case you're not following.
so if they already did it, and they failed, and then they said they were going to try again, maybe they succeeded this time.
We should probably check, huh?
"your narrative"
you're one of those " facts are opinions" people?
"so I think I'll discontinue now."
took you a real long message to tell me you're going to stop talking.
I see very little to disagree with, factually, in this message.
You sound like because I took issue with the "bullet ballots" thing, you're trying to engineer some disagreement with me, backing the goalposts up and then pretending I guess that I would disagree with this new stance. But yes, this mostly makes sense.
"you're trying to engineer some disagreement with me"
nope.
I disagree with your inaccuracy and tangential rabbit hole diving.
you're criticizing one instance of limited speculation with your own limited speculation, and ignoring the majority of other scientists who are only using unassailable facts, that is "the crux of the matter".
you're sticking with this one detail of this one guy so that you don't have to come to terms with the facts.
I'm not engineering anything, you're upset that I'm not allowing you to fabricate an inaccurate narrative.
don't pretend you're not the one holding those goalposts.
Unless you actually believe that you're not...in which case, take a deep breath, read your comments through again, and try to pare down what you're saying to the things that actually make a difference instead of just argumentative quibbling.
you agree with everything I'm saying, you don't like how I'm saying it because I'm not being polite to your less consequential narratives.
well, I'm not going to be polite because you started making things up or changing the topic either so, don't go that route.
I really just don't want to sit and argue with you.
To clarify, I strongly disagree with your linked source, and your initial message where you said the election "was likely hacked." I looked at the data which your own source led off with, and built its whole argument off. "The key data raising concerns that a hack may have been deployed is the number of bullet ballots which exist for Trump in swing states," they said. So I looked into those bullet ballot claims, and found that they're contradicted by publicly available information.
You can call that rabbit-hole diving or tangential if you want. I call it critical thinking.
I mostly agree with your more recent messages, where all you are saying is that the Republicans are dishonest enough that we should be doing recounts and making sure that nothing happened. That part makes perfect sense to me. I have no disagreement with any of the computer scientists who signed the "free speech for the people" letter.
I've clarified what I think, probably at too much length at this point. I'm not interested in an extended argument about it or in responding to personal attacks. Have a good day.
"I really just don't want to sit and argue with you."
... so you proceed to write a treatise?
"You can call that rabbit-hole diving or tangential if you want. I call it critical thinking."
that should make you feel better, and accurate though and maybe.
We have nine computer scientists talking about facts.
One of which goes one step further.
you think that maybe he is wrong.
based on you thinking that maybe he is wrong.
fine. maybe he is.
doesn't change anything about the other eight scientists linked or any of the relevant facts.
"probably at too much length at this point."
definitely, with some unnecessary redundancy.
"I'm not interested in an extended argument "
yeah, I can tell by all your rehashed arguments that you're not interested in arguing.
thanks for those.
https://lemmy.world/post/22317681
This is exactly what I said. The claimed evidence doesn't match the publicly available figures, and the rest is wild speculation with no particular backing. Almost as if "using your own critique" and testing extraordinary claims against known facts before absorbing them, is a good thing to do.
I'm going to return to not arguing with you, after this, but I just wanted to share that a trusted authority agrees with me exactly about how to treat the claims made your first couple of messages.
dude, you're not arguing with me, you're agreeing with me.
but I'm glad for it.