Conservatives flock to Parler, claiming censorship on Facebook and Twitter

> He demanded hand recounts only in four counties he had won by large margins. That tilted the recount in his favor: hand recounts will find more discernible votes than machine counting, and by only requesting recounts in counties that where the base rate of Gore votes was very high, most of those newly-counted votes would be for Gore

So recount all the counties.

But that's beside the point, which was that we know there were severe problems with the 2000 Florida vote due to a large number of dimpled or hanging chads, meaning that votes were being counted by the machines as being omitted where the voter intended to and thought they had voted, and poorly designed butterfly ballots that appear to have led to many people to mix up the Gore hole and Buchanan hole (and led about 19k people to punch both holes, since both were next to Gore).

There's nothing like that for 2020, where Trump is claiming the vote was fraudulent but keeps failing to actually bring up any evidence in court.

agreed. it’s a non-profit with some gov’t funding, but major donors and sponsors (advertisers), along with competitive pressures from other national media, hold significant sway over their (im-)partiality. it’s concentrated capital again using our heads and hearts to hoard more money and power for themselves.

Oh, I meant no ill will to you personally, my comment was more so an observation about human nature in general.

My point is that there is a widespread phenomenon whereby individuals notice logical or other shortcomings in members of their various outgroups, and then write comments on forums about this behavior in a manner that implies (if not outright asserts as fact) that this sort of behavior is overwhelmingly limited only to members of the outgroup, and does not exist within their ingroup.

And if one is in a community with a user base that is ideologically homogeneous, this one-sided, inaccurate description of reality often becomes kind of a constant theme that reappears in thread after thread, in turn (so they say) reinforcing these beliefs in the minds of those who regularly read such comments.

Regarding "found it interesting", it can also be observed within such communities how certain ideas catch the attention of people, but abstractly ~identical ideas (but differing at the object level due to different values of variables) go unnoticed.

If one observes these discussions carefully over a long period of time, patterns of behavior become extremely apparent: basically, textbook confirmation bias, information bubbles (and the flawed descriptions of and predictions about reality that inevitably result), and so forth and so on. Of course, this shouldn't be too surprising.

But the interesting part is if one happens to wade into such a conversation, drawing people's attention to the manifestation of these abstract behaviors within the current thread. At this point, one would logically expect a reaction something like surprise and then realization (due to HN being largely composed of highly logical people with above average levels of integrity and honesty). However, this is not what actually occurs, the majority of the time (in my experience as an ideological outlier). What actually occurs usually more so resembles what one would see on "less high quality forums" than here (rhetoric, "mental gymnastics", insults, logical fallacies, etc etc etc). Of course, this is just human nature in action, but still - it's weird, I don't see why we can't do better (than other communities), and I really can't wrap my head around why we wouldn't want to do better than other communities. And yet, here we are (not you...I am speaking in general).

> To elaborate on why I am not willing to empathize further than I have, I have no wish to empathize with bigotry.

> But I have zero tolerance for intolerance, and will call it as I see it.

I completely agree with the sentiments of what you've written here. However, I wonder if you are as good at exercising these beliefs as you perceive (I'm making no accusation, I am merely discussing the idea - I too deserve the very same cross examination, and encourage anyone to do so).

Let's start with defining some terms:

bigotry - stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own

truth - the true or actual state of a matter; conformity with fact or reality

epistemology - the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope. Epistemology is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion

perception - the act or faculty of perceiving, or apprehending by means of the senses or of the mind; cognition; understanding.

prejudice - preconceived judgment or opinion; an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge

So, a non-controversial example of bigotry would be racism, which typically involves some variation of racist individuals forming negative conclusions of POC (individually, or as a group) based on preconceived ideas, without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge. Racism is a pretty easy one to spot, everyone here has consumed plentiful educational material, and most likely engaged in several conversations on the matter.

Now let's examine another group that is often subject to bigotry, even here on HN: conspiracy theorists.

1. Do you happen to have a personal opinion on conspiracy theorists?

2. Do you have an opinion on the nature of typical discussions here on HN related to conspiracy theorists?

And before you answer, please note:

a) I went to the trouble of stating definitions for several terms above, but really only made use of [prejudice] thus far.

b) It has been my experience that such questions are typically responded to with rhetoric, evasiveness, character attacks (insinuations of bad faith, gish-galloping, etc). I would prefer that this conversation does not fall victim to that pattern, but rather, follows a more honest, curious, and productive path (which I believe is one of the more important things that is missing in the world).

There is no “teacher” who is going to grade you on how representative your social media feed is of the country. The point of creating an online feed could be entertainment, to arm you with the information and means of communication necessary to accomplish some goals you take part in, etc., but there is no point in trying to achieve some representative feed. You will not be rewarded for it.

I disagree.

I am not talking about marketing. I am talking about a very specific neurological/psychological phenomenon, that is highly suggestive that memory access is dynamic, that it varies on the topic, that it varies based on perspective (abstract vs real-time object level), and that it occurs here on HN.

My claim is also contrary to a claim higher in the thread:

>>> Compare this to how things were 15 years ago, [or how they are in here, where everyone and their dog can challenge your opinion]. [You become more open minded long term, and can handle criticism in a more mature way].

Now it's true that on a relative basis, HN is superior to many other forums, and also that it is true to some degree that certain opinions can be challenged, and subsequent discussions will be handled in a mature way.

This is far from comprehensively true though. And also, it can be observed that people seem to not like to discuss this idea (that certain topics cannot be maturely discussed on HN, including the the abstract idea that certain topics cannot be maturely discussed on HN).