ymeskhout
9mo ago
Adjusting equalizer settings is usually enough, and I haven't explored the AI voice tools yet but I imagine there's potential there
ymeskhout
9mo ago
What do you believe are my motte and bailey positions on this topic?
could you defend the election stolen viewpoint?
It all depends on what viewpoint we're talking about, which is why I keep asking for specifics. I already believe that some fraud happens in every election but not enough to make a difference, so I can defend that viewpoint against whoever out there happens to believe that electoral fraud does not exist. The overall problem with this topic is the inverse correlation between how defensible vs how consequential an allegation is, which is why there's a see-saw oscillation between "millions of fake ballots were cast for Biden" and "one guy in Nevada filled out his dead wife's ballot".
ymeskhout
9mo ago
That's fine if that's the version of 'stolen' you want to argue, the word is ambiguous enough. I was primarily interested to hear from people who have stridently accused me of weakmanning the overall genre and hoping to hear from them about what they believe are the strongest claims I've allegedly ignored or unfairly dismissed.
ymeskhout
9mo ago
I don't think I ever heard anyone say "I would be for mass immigration even if it was caused a massive spike in crime!"
I'm someone in favor of open borders and would bite this bullet. It's fair to say my position is primarily (but not exclusively) based on valuing freedom of movement over a consequential analysis. It's hard to cleanly break the two however, because a significant objection I have against immigration restrictions is that they're insufficiently narrow. If I had to pick a restriction, I would always pick something like "anyone with IQ >150 is allowed in" over something like "only 10,000 Cambodians per year".
ymeskhout
9mo ago
If there's no hard evidence then it makes the weakmanning accusations even more baffling.
ymeskhout
9mo ago
This is a coherent and testable theory and I appreciate you raising it. If anyone wants to either build on this or argue that it's the strongest 2020 stolen election claim, I'm happy to talk to them.
ymeskhout
9mo ago
The issue with your question in general is that if you apply a broader definition to the term 'stolen' then it becomes a both sides issues; and if you apply a narrower definition with respect to whether particular constitutional or electoral laws were broken, that argument simply hasn't borne fruit despite numerous challenges. With a broad definition, what kind of argument can be made that doesn't come down to 'their side stole the election more than my side', and with a narrow definition the argument is already settled.
I agree with your framing, the level of disagreement depends almost entirely on people consider 'stolen'. The OP was made in response to incessant accusations that I have been weakmanning the issue, which is why I left an open invitation for my accusers to bring forth whatever they believe are the strongest claims I have been ignoring/dismissing.
ymeskhout
9mo ago
If the strongest claim from people who believe the election was stolen is that "some fraud is happening" then there's nothing for me to disagree with.
ymeskhout
9mo ago
Closing off motte-and-bailey acrobatics is a great way to raise one's credibility.
ymeskhout
9mo ago
Motte-and-bailey fallacies rely on ambiguity in order to maintain as much flexibility as possible to jump between the two positions, and so the best guard against this tactic is to get people to be specific and unambiguous about their positions. A request for disavowal is only appropriate if there is a history or suspicion of this kind of slipperiness, and I would apply it consistently to any other topic where this issue applies.
The word 'stolen' perhaps implies some measure of dishonesty but is still too ambiguous to have a hard technical meaning. Someone claiming that the election was 'stolen' doesn't tell me enough information about what they actually belief, and paired in contrast to 'unfair' it's my imperfect attempt to try and draw a distinction between the two camps of allegations. I don't really care what vocabulary people use as long as the meaning is clear and unambiguous enough.
ymeskhout
9mo ago
Your objection would be valid if it was true, but I already denied that it was based in fact.
ymeskhout
9mo ago
Assuming arguendo that voting fraud is possible because there aren't enough safeguards, I don't see how that gets us to 1) fraud did not cancel itself out and instead favored a particular candidate then to 2) the one-sided fraud was significant enough to affect results 3) the fraud remained undetected despite significant efforts to uncover it.
If someone just wants to argue that fraud is possible, I'll take whatever I can get, but I'm looking for the strongest possible claims.
ymeskhout
9mo ago
That's true! The problem is the lack of acknowledgements along the lines of "Yes, the Dominion Voting stuff is crazy but this other thing is worthwhile...". And I don't know how many times I need to repeat this, but people go beyond refusing to acknowledge the retarded theories to accuse me of dishonesty/weakmanning. I suspect the lack of disavowals is part of the sanewashing tactic, where the crazy wing of any faction is kept close because their enthusiasm remains useful.
ymeskhout
9mo ago
How do the rules favor other trained lawyers, and what changes would you suggest?
ymeskhout
9mo ago
Nah, I'm thrilled by the most perfunctory of acknowledgements from anyone holding a position weakly. I rarely even get that much of a morsel.
ymeskhout
9mo ago
Right, I've repeatedly identified the motte-and-bailey tactic of making bombastic fraud-fraud claims about Dominion Voting or whatever but then shifting towards the weaker "the election was unfair" position when pressed for evidence on the initial claims. I don't want to tip the scales here and it's why I'm asking people to volunteer what they believe are the strongest claims worthy of attention. If someone wants to claim that the strongest argument in favor of the stolen election is the attempted suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story then that's fine and I'll take whatever I can get, but that's conceding the more dramatic claims as indefensible.
Again, I've been repeatedly accused of dishonesty and weakmanning on this topic, and I'm trying to do everything I can to facilitate them making their case that it's a valid allegation instead of a baseless smear.
ymeskhout
9mo ago
I don't believe I gained any super powers from being a lawyer, and I reached my positions with access to the exact same resources that anyone else has. But whatever advantages I may have I would assume are mitigated by sharing resources ahead of time and the 1v3 format. I'm open to other suggestions. I also think it's perfectly ok/commendable for people to admit they're incapable of defending their beliefs, but keep in mind that the three I tagged have made confident assertions about my dishonesty and bad faith on this particular topic. Unless someone is making a baseless accusation, I have to assume it's based on some evidence and that they would be eager for an opportunity to establish the validity of their beliefs.
ymeskhout
9mo ago
but with him everything turns into a trial where you have to prove everything beyond reasonable doubt.
Patently false. There's absolutely nothing wrong with having confidence qualifiers to any of one's beliefs, I myself do this when I express a conclusion I'm unsure about. It's perfectly fine/commendable for someone to acknowledge that they lack ironclad evidence for their belief. The problem is making confident assertions without the ability to back them up.
This is the place for folks to "test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases" after all. We could all save a lot of time if people were more transparent about their foundations.
ymeskhout
9mo ago
I agree this is a concern though we might disagree on how widespread it is comparatively speaking. The best guard against this phenomenon is for the sane actors to disavow the retarded versions of their arguments. I'm someone who has long supported BLM's policy positions (at least the Campaign Zero ones released in 2016) and I'm not shy about acknowledging the retards who are nominally on my camp, or otherwise acknowledging reality and facts adverse to my positions.
ymeskhout
9mo ago
If the constellation of stolen election beliefs was treated in a similar manner to the low status beliefs you reference, I would agree with you that this would be a waste of time. Unfortunately it remains a deeply consequential position that isn't just relegated to some fringe. The Republican party has enshrined this belief into a shibboleth that is a practical requirement for admission, as the presumptive leader of the conservative movement uses it as a screening/loyalty test.
ymeskhout
9mo ago
I've previously spent $130 to hire a Nigerian voice actress to redub someone concerned about their identity and I imagine the masking options are way cheaper now.
ymeskhout
9mo ago
I personally think pursuing the "election was flawed/unfair" angle is a sound strategy much more grounded in reality, but it requires disavowing the "election was stolen" angle in order to close off motte-and-bailey acrobatics between the two.
ymeskhout
9mo ago
you need to sweeten the pot a little.
What would you suggest? All three I tagged have variously accused of me flagrantly dishonesty, bad faith, and other misdeeds on this particular topic. I would imagine someone who holds that belief would be eager for the opportunity to substantiate it and record it for posterity.
It depends. The two factors I would consider most is how often the individual has engaged in slipperiness and how often slipperiness is utilized within the given topic. I consider disavowal to just be one of the ways of stating one's positions clearly and unambiguously. I have been very consistent about this because it applies to many topics and it's a very easy way to close off slipperiness. A good example is 'Defund the Police'.
More options
Context Copy link