221–230 of 355 posts
I've also noticed that the term "willful ignorance" gets thrown around a lot more nowadays. There is a sizeable contingent of people who are so convinced that what they believe is the absolute truth that any disagreement or critique must therefore be out of malice rather than genuine disagreement.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Neither is it exclusive to the woke, or anyone else. What I would really like to see is a concrete example, which so far everyone has declined to give. It's customary to provide some actual evidence to back up claims. "Your honor, the defendant killed the victim in cold blood" "I see, proceed with your evidence" "Meh, go find it for yourself."
It is not exclusive to the woke, no. "I am a better parent / patriot / Christian / anti-racist / Aryan / communist / whatever than you." seems to be remarkably universal. Some people just love to create ladders of virtue and vice. But at certain times, one of those prevails. IDK if you were alive immediately after 9/11. That was a period of unabashed jingoism. Now, 20 years later, this fever has long subsided, but th…
Jingoism subsided? Really? MAGA, America First, The BNP, Britain First. Its really not gone away.
And surely an increase in empathy, tolerance and understanding is to be welcomed. Unless your definition of woke is something else - no-one who is "anti-woke" will actually tell me what they think it means, just vague insinuations that "they do x" with no concrete examples.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It feels like you're being disingenuous. If you've spent time on HN and other forums, I have a hard time believing you don't understand the terminology he's using. It's especially pernicious, because the OP is not a native English speaker, and so he may believe he's actually being difficult to understand, when he's really not.
I don't think so. I'm just stuggling to see why being alert to racial prejudice and discrimination is bad thing. If you would like to explain why it is, please do.
...while Antifa is literally burning down cars and shops indiscriminately...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> disgracefully Amazing all the words that some come up with to discount what was a violent attempt at staying in power after losing an election.
It was just one word, actually. And, as we are learning now, Hillary Clinton's team paid to infiltrate into whitehouse servers as part of efforts to delegitimize Trump's election: https://www.dailywire.com/news/bombshell-clinton-campaign-pa... We also know now that the russian collusion hoax was entirely fabricated by Hillary's team: https://nypost.com/2021/11/04/the-real-collusion-was-the-cre... I don't agree with w…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It appears we dont really have enough commonly accepted facts to have a fruitful conversation. The article you linked to talks about a lot of really horrible things, which I guess you agree with based on your linking to it and describing removing voters from the voters role for simply not voting in the previous election as no big deal? My big picture take is that democracy is good, and depriving people of votes is ba…
It appears we dont really have enough commonly accepted facts to have a fruitful conversation. Welcome to American politics. That you were willing to have a dialog at all with someone who disagrees with you might set you above the average. My big picture take is that democracy is good, and depriving people of votes is bad. How about this big picture take? Democracy is good, and citizen votes deserve protection. Every…
Is it, though?
My belief is that voter fraud is basically a non-issue, that it doesn't really happen very much at all, and that it is a bogus argument put forth by the Republicans to give an excuse for why they are so consistently fighting to not allow people to vote.
Google search "does voter fraud really happen", and "how bad is voter fraud":
https://www.google.com/search?q=does+voter+fraud+really+happ...
https://www.google.com/search?q=how+bad+is+voter+fraud
I can't find any results that don't back up my belief. Can you?
The Heritage Foundation, a far-right think tank, has a page on voter fraud: https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud
But, in my opinion, it's kind of amazing that they leave the page up. The purpose of this page is to document and expose how bad voter fraud is, and they provide a searchable database on all the cases they have found and confirmed. Their database goes back to 1982, and they have found... 1340 cases of voter fraud.
This is an embarrassingly low number, isn't it? A few thousand fraudulent votes over the last 40 years?
Also, it's not like these cases are cases of people manufacturing thousands of votes. You can check for yourself, the entire list is here:
https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud-print/search
These are overwhelmingly on the order of "a single extra vote was cast" because someone voted in two districts, or mailed in an absentee ballot for a deceased relative.
Meanwhile, do Republicans work to suppress votes? I think it's hard to argue otherwise in good faith:
https://www.google.com/search?q=do+republicans+suppress+vote...
Why does Mitch McConnell say that the idea of making election day a national holiday is a "naked power grab" for Democrats? Shouldn't making it easier for people to vote be a "good idea that strengthens our democracy"?
https://www.google.com/search?q=mitch+mcconnell+election+day...
Another belief of mine is that it's common knowledge in politics that the more people who vote, the worse Republicans fare in elections.
The Republican professional politicians are usually better at not openly admitting such things, but Trump gave us another example of "saying the quiet part out loud" with his usual eloquence: "They had levels of voting, that if you ever agreed to it you'd never have a Republican elected in this country again"
https://www.google.com/search?q=They+had+levels+of+voting%2C...
Why would Trump say that?
The Republicans are trying to reduce democracy. They lost the support of the people. They have only won the popular vote once in the past 30 years. Rather than changing their platform to try to appeal to more voters, they've decided that the people are their enemy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But the judge, the prosecutor and the lawyers are all paid to give the judge stuff, we're here having a conversation, but I am not sure what kind of proof do you want and what should we do, like it's not that newspapers write article about wokes being wokes, just maybe go around on twitter or go on twitter and write something controversial like "#FuckBLM" and see what comes at you, not sure what do you want or I mean…
But why would I go onto Twitter and say that, unless I was a massive racist? And why, as a doughty protector of free speech would I not be perfectly fine with anyone using their own right of freedom of speech to reply to me? Robustly. Is it just that you want freedom without consequences? Because you're a racist? No accusing - just "asking questions". You gave me one link - to Wikipedia, which you then seem to have a…
I am genuinely surprised at the comments in this thread. This article starts "That said, I do not think there is much evidence that misinformation has become more widespread, that this increase in misinformation is due to technological change, or that it is at the root of the political trends liberals are most angry about", which is immediately making this a partisan issue. Secondly: "The internet makes me better inf…
"Real people are dying because of perpetuated information on social media and "news" outlets." You mean those about covid or vaccines? What exactly is wrong to let people choose? Why you think that what is best for you should be best for others?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We shouldn’t try to fix obesity, smoking, enforce seatbelts, gangs, local pollution, etc because all those are personal choices to live near or partake in?
Try to help as you wish, but describe the problem accurately. And understand that the people you are trying to help may resist you because you are interfering in their choices. Some people passionately want to keep drugs like fentanyl out of the country. Others think it's impractical and efforts have done more harm than good. Still others say "hand them a clean needle". Messing with the choices people make that you t…
I guess that my more appropriate and more relevant corrected version of the statement didnt sound like it supported the point so the original was phrased as if it’s my own non expert opinion that smoking causes cancer.
fentanyl? Are you saying that should be unregulated and freely purchasable at the local 7/11 or are you saying it should be regulated even although some people choose to do it?
Either way I’m not really sure how that supports the older points about people technically but not practically having the option to avoid misinformation means society should ignore misinformation as it’s “a personal choice”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was just one word, actually. And, as we are learning now, Hillary Clinton's team paid to infiltrate into whitehouse servers as part of efforts to delegitimize Trump's election: https://www.dailywire.com/news/bombshell-clinton-campaign-pa... We also know now that the russian collusion hoax was entirely fabricated by Hillary's team: https://nypost.com/2021/11/04/the-real-collusion-was-the-cre... I don't agree with w…
Your argument is that Trump attempted a coup and failed to interrupt it, but that is okay because it wasn't a serious coup and other corruption exists.
Right now, I believe Trump legitimately thought the election was stolen and he wanted Pence to de-certify the election to give time for his lawsuits to go through the courts and show the evidence of the fraud. I absolutely do not think Trump was in any way encouraging people to riot in the capitol, much less stage a coup. I also believe that no such fraud was ever found, putting Trump in the wrong, most likely. If I am wrong, let me see the evidence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think “lying” as more of a “your claim is outright false” while “disingenuous” lends itself to more subjective forms of misleading. For example, if I refer to a given protest as “violent” on the basis that a literal handful (out of tens or hundreds of thousands) were violent, I’m not really lying but I’m certainly misleading people by way of my characterization.
Yes—there are subtle distinctions between these words ("dissimulation" is another, but that one hasn't become internet-popular). The aspect they have in common, as pvg points out, is that they all imply intent to deceive. Since internet commenters basically can't ever know that about each other, they're not allowed to direct those words at each other here ( https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html ).