ymeskhout
9mo ago
Given the significant interest around the 2020 stolen election claims (definitely my favorite hobby horse topic), and the serious accusations that I have been weakmanning the overall category of election fraud claims, I would like to extend an open invitation to anyone interested in exposing the errors of my ways to a real-time discussion for a Bailey episode.
Here are the conditions I would suggest:
- Given the wide array of stolen election claims and our limited time on earth, you will have free reign to pick 2 or 3 of whatever you believe are the strongest claims worthy of attention, particularly if any of the claims are ones I have conspicuously ignored. Hopefully this will address any concerns that I'm weakmanning.
- Once you have the 2-3 topics chosen, you agree to share in advance all the evidence that you plan to rely upon to make your case so that I have a chance to look at it. Same obligation applies to me for anything I might rely on. I want to avoid anyone thinking that they were either surprised or caught off-guard, and it's also not interesting to listen to someone carefully read a 263-page PDF.
- In terms of number of participants, this might be best as me versus 3. Any more than that is prone to be too chaotic and too tedious to edit, and any fewer I'd be concerned of being insufficiently comprehensive about the topic.
- Everyone involved will have immediate access to everyone's raw recording to guard against any concerns of selective/misleading editing.
- Ideally, you're a bona fide believer (or at least genuinely believe the theories are sufficiently plausible) in the stolen election claims you're arguing for, rather than just someone who can competently steelman the arguments. I want to make sure that every claim is adequately defended.
- I don't intend enforcing any strict format or time limit, as it would be best to discuss each claim for as long as is necessary to ensure it all gets a fair shake.
Are any of the above unreasonable or unfair? Do you have any suggested additions/changes?
I've been trying to set a conversation like this for years but haven't found any takers. @Dean, @jfk, @motteposting are the ones I know are sufficiently motivated and informed about the topic, and whom I'd most look forward to dissecting this topic with. Feel free to nominate anyone else you think would be good.
ymeskhout
9mo ago
I'm sorry but I don't know what to do with this response. If the problems with my argumentation style are so clear, why are they so difficult to specify? I understand that some issues can be difficult to articulate precisely but even so that shouldn't be a barrier from suggesting alternative ways I can communicate myself. A silly example but I can understand how responding to a text message with "Thanks." comes off as curt and rude, even if I can't articulate the exact reasons why. But even then I can still suggest alternatives like "Thanks!🥰" or whatever. I would love to hear a simple suggestion along the lines of "Instead of saying X, try saying Y" or whatever the issue is.
I've asked exactly this from Dean this many many many times and he's never taken me up on the offer. Given the persistent contours of this grudge, I can only assume that his real problem isn't with my argumentation style, but the fact that I haven't adopted the conclusion he prefers. I can't just assume that people are operating in good faith if the evidence suggests otherwise.
ymeskhout
9mo ago
You seem to be equating immigration status with professional competency and I'm not sure why. It's reasonable to assume that a licensed plumber is more competent than an unlicensed plumber, but are Guatemalan-born plumbers (licensed or not) less competent than American-born plumbers?
ymeskhout
9mo ago
I appreciate that you took the time to answer but I've read what you said multiple times and I can't identify anything actionable. What exactly is my argumentation style and how exactly would it give someone the subjective experience that I'm lying? What is the specific way I'm approaching this topic and how does it stymie people who disagree with me? It would help if you illustrated your concerns with specific examples of things I've said, and ideally offered suggestions on alternative ways I could convey myself.
ymeskhout
9mo ago
I'd rather you directly say "I think this claim is false and here's why" and even "And I think you know it's false"
I would love it if this happened! Specifics are so much better than riddles
ymeskhout
9mo ago
For anyone reading who is passively curious, I've asked Dean many many many times to precisely identify any false statements I've made or other instances of dishonesty and the most substantive explanation I was able to wrestle out of him in recent memory was this post from more than a year ago where he links to threads containing my purported dishonesty, but refuses to specify any further. I've looked through all the threads he linked and couldn't identify any false statements or anything else to substantiate his allegations. I understand that Dean is perennially averse to supplying details, but if ANYBODY reading this can provide ANY insight into what he's claiming, I would be extremely grateful!
ymeskhout
9mo ago
I agree, I'm not a fan of that kind of cursory disclaimer. I probably would've phrased it as this but it adds to the wordcount: Western officials paid tribute to his courage as a fighter for freedom. Some bluntly accused the Kremlin, referencing the history of suspicious deaths of opposition leaders, but citing no direct evidence.
ymeskhout
9mo ago
The facts you describe are indeed what is broadly accepted happened, but it's misleading for you to characterize this as "the sequence of events described by the crazy conspiracy theorists in Georgia" without mentioning the components that render this a remarkable sequence of events for the conspiracy theorists: that they created a ruse to send observers home so that they could pull suitcases full of Biden ballots and scan them multiple times without the observers present.
ymeskhout
9mo ago
Yes, you're right. We used to have a sort of peace treaty around discussing religious beliefs where we generally left people alone and didn't badger them about it, even if you think the beliefs are completely delusional. The problem is we don't have a similar convention for folks who want their non-religious beliefs to be similarly immune from evidentiary scrutiny, perhaps because admitting the desire for immunity is a bridge too far. The culture war topics for me that fit this bill the most are 2020 stolen election claims on the right, and the incoherent and vague concept of gender identity on the left.
ymeskhout
9mo ago
onus of proof is not on the losers to provide evidence of illegitimacy, the onus is on election officials to convince the losing party that they lost fair and square.
I agree that election officials have a responsibility to affirmatively defend the integrity of the elections they manage. The problem is that some election skeptics are implacable and immune to evidence. They believe the only legitimate outcome is when their preferred candidate wins, and so they see a loss as presumptive evidence of fraud and they'll work backwards and credulously repeat whatever theory happens to be convenient to their narrative. It's a big problem but I don't know how you're supposed to reason with delusional people.
ymeskhout
9mo ago
Yeah, when the leader of political opposition to an autocrat dies in a prison colony at 47 years old, the default is that they were murdered by the regime.
I agree this is by far the most likely explanation but it's still a good practice for a newspaper to avoid "everyone knows what really happened" style of citation.
ymeskhout
9mo ago
The blog post is dated Nov 5, 2020 and it was just a copy of one of my motte reddit post. I don't recall the issue with the Philadelphia observers being kept behind barriers, but either way that's not the claim the Trump lawyers went with in court. I also don't recall what exchange you're referring to, I was able to dig up this conversation where I tried to ascertain the worst-case scenario from the Georgia water main incident, but that doesn't seem to be what you have in mind.
It's a good example of what Dean has been complaining about -- you are coming off as a dishonest interlocutor here to anyone who followed events at the time and maybe went to the trouble of digging up links for you.
I take allegations of dishonesty very seriously! That's why I keep offering my full motte archives for others to scrutinize. If I'm ever being dishonest or whatever (as Dean constantly insists I am) then it should be effortless to demonstrate this. You're citing an exchange that you claim to be a good example of my dishonesty, but it's based off your memory. If you're remembering correctly, then I will acknowledge error and issue a public apology. But if you're misremembering, I would appreciate an apology from you.
ymeskhout
9mo ago
This is a refreshingly honest response that is coherent. Assuming it's true, I would wonder what exactly were the lower classes supposed to do. And how effective would creating false-but-exciting documentaries be in the long run if it ends up poisoning the well when it's exposed as a fraud?
ymeskhout
9mo ago
@Dean and I have gone round and round on this issue for literally years where he continues to insist that I am ignoring blockbuster evidence, but then simultaneously he'll write very long posts articulating why he's justified in refusing to mention this blockbuster evidence I'm ignoring. A sample of responses to my (many many many) requests:
- "I'm not particularly interested in trying to feed you sources to be judged by you on your standards on credibility to consistency standards you impose that helpfully weed out things other people might care about and could even be true."
- "I am uninterested in providing you sources on other people's positions given your conduct on this topic."
- "Can I? Sure. Will I? A waste of time when you are involved, given your pattern of conduct which has been noted repeatedly over the years even if you have also repeatedly denied the feedback."
Dean is intelligent, knowledgeable, and articulate on a wide array of topics (particularly in the realm of geopolitics). The only topic I'm aware where he has maintained this years-long stonewalling vow is on the 2020 election, and the only explanation that makes sense to me is that he's concerned that I'd eviscerate his supposed blockbuster evidence. I admit the weakness in this explanation is that I don't understand how someone who is otherwise intelligent could compartmentalize to this degree without self-awareness.
ymeskhout
9mo ago
If there is a problem, at best, you pause the counting until a satisfactory solution to all parties is agreed upon. Not kick people out, board up windows, and then plow on ahead in the chaos.
In a similar case in Philadelphia, Trump's campaign filed for an emergency halt to the count because they claimed it was proceeding without Republican observers present, but then their lawyer had to admit to a judge that actually there were "a non zero number" of Republican observers in the room. This is part of a common pattern around that time where they'd make explosive claims only to have to walk it back significantly once they were in court where lying carried penalties.
Based on the number of blatantly frivolous claims that were credulously trotted out, I believe the concerns over electoral safeguards were generally not earnest. Instead, the overwhelming motivation was upset that Trump was losing and so they used election integrity as a pretextual facade. That's why there has been such a flood of low-quality claims (remember Sharpiegate? Italian satellites? Bamboo ballots? Dominion algorithm?) that would get dropped as soon as they fell apart, only to move on to the next thing.
ymeskhout
9mo ago
I only brought up Giuliani because he was the one who broke the story, and who made the most confident pronouncements about the election workers involved, and who claimed to have a bunch of evidence to prove his allegations. I posit if the claims about "pulling out suitcases of Biden ballots and scanning them multiple times" were true, he was the best positioned to prove them.
ymeskhout
9mo ago
Because in that case, they think those are the guilty parties?
If they think the election authorities are in on it, why would they bother filing a complaint with them only to retract it when the authorities asked for evidence? And if they had evidence, why would they ask their lawyer to lie in court and say they didn't have evidence? I posit it's because they're lying.
ymeskhout
9mo ago
That metaphor doesn't make sense because I don't know what innocent/guilty is supposed to map to for Giuliani. I'm saying that Giuliani is lying when he claims to have evidence, and whether or not his court procedure was messed up (citation needed) doesn't affect his ability to release his purported evidence outside of court. There's no reason for me to default to assuming he's telling the truth.
ymeskhout
9mo ago
So to loop it back, I said my theory for why Giuliani sandbagged his trial is because he didn't have the evidence he claimed he had. You claimed this was an unreasonable position to hold, but now you're saying that you don't know what evidence Giuliani had? If he hasn't released his evidence outside of court, do you still think it's unreasonable to think the man has been lying about that? At what point would you be willing to accept that explanation?
ymeskhout
9mo ago
As such I would suggest that in the event that the above safeguards are broken/removed or other irregularities appear (and I don't think you can deny that there were irregularities) it is only fair, dare I say it rational, to ask "what gives?"
Sure, I don't disagree with this. It's perfectly reasonable to be skeptical of claims of legitimacy, but if the skepticism is primarily/only deployed in one direction, or if it is immune or implacably resistant to evidence, then it's also reasonable to conclude the skepticism is either the source of delusion or some other form of motivated reasoning. If someone is a perennial believer that the election was stolen, I have no ideations that I would be able to convince them otherwise with evidence, because it's unlikely that evidence got them where they are in the first place. I'm not equipped to make vibes-based arguments, and I don't know any other topic (except maybe trans gender identity?) where this is seen as an acceptable basis to hold a belief.
I prefer actual evidence. All I know how to do is to dig into specific claims with specifics, and I picked one that's fairly unambiguous. TTV showed up in court and said they didn't have evidence they claimed they have — there's no way to spin this any other way. I understand that if someone is particularly attached to believing in the belief that the 2020 election was stolen, then claims about TTV present an uncomfortable and inconvenient threat to their preferred narrative but that's not on me.
ymeskhout
9mo ago
Ok, I was hoping for something new and I'll keep my mind open towards that. We're repeating the cycle from a year ago where I ask for specifics and you scoff at having to provide proof for something so patently obvious. I've outlined before the reasons I believe your reluctance to substantively engage by providing specifics:
I can't prove this conclusively because I can't read your mind, but I strongly suspect that your refusal to provide arguments because I'm purportedly acting in bad faith is just a pretextual excuse (a lie) used by you as a dodge to avoid defending your beliefs or having them scrutinized. I suspect that anti-Trump arguments in particular make you upset, but because you are unable to construct a legitimate counter-argument, you resort to a dogged and persistent response campaign which compensates for the lack of substance with a heavy dose of vitriol.
I'm again open to having my mind changed but you're still responding with riddles and disdain even after a lengthy sabbatical.
Do you want to do a Bailey episode about this? You can quiz me all you want about whatever you want! You'd keep both our raw recordings and can do whatever with it! Let me know my man, otherwise sleep tight my friend.
ymeskhout
9mo ago
By denying previously provided compelling evidence of misconduct warrinting doubt as compelling, and then insisting later that only uncompelling arguments were ever offered
Can you cite a specific example of compelling evidence that I have denied? Once again to assist you, here are every single one of my reddit motte posts archived in this google spreadsheet.
ymeskhout
9mo ago
What purpose does it serve to restrict discussion to TTV?
I've already said upthread: my interest here is wanting to avoid time-wasting Gish gallops and motte-and-bailey diversions, because an unfortunately common rhetorical trick used by some when they encounter arguments inconvenient to their position is to try and change the subject.
And also: The reason I included that disclaimer was explicitly to avoid Gish galloping or similar distractions when discussing specifics. The scenario I have in mind is someone who believes that the 2020 election was stolen comes across the TTV claims I've made, but is frustrated because they realize they can't substantively rebut them. They're reluctant to admit that out loud, because they see arguments as soldiers and believe that conceding TTV to be liars will further erode their overall claims about the 2020 elections. Accordingly, their only viable response is evasion; doing everything possible to avoid discussing TTV directly, and instead preemptively changing to a different subject they believe to be more defensible.
If you're not interested in TTV that's cool! You don't have to comment! If you want to start a thread called "Why the overall 2020 stolen election claims are still valid even though TTV specifically has admitted they have no evidence of it" you're welcome to do so!
you have regularly sought to use specific cases as a broader disproof to concerns or condemnations or malbehavior of the 2020 elections as unfounded/unjustified/'very poor quality in general'
I think if there's a bunch of specific cases that turn out to be unfounded, then it's justified to presumptively downgrade the broader claim only as a heuristic. I don't believe I've ever used a specific election fraud case to disprove the broader election fraud claim, but if I did then I disavow it now because that's not a valid argument. This would be akin to saying "Michael Richards never killed someone" as a way to establish that no Seinfeld cast member has ever killed someone.
You likewise have a pattern of then later referring to those selectively narrow motte-arguments in serve of more expansive baileys, such as claiming no substantive or well-founded issues were raised in previous iterations, or otherwise minimizing the existence or legitimacy of counter-positions, generally expressed by claimed befuddlement on how people could believe a broader topic despite numerous presentations to you.
Can you cite a specific example of my evasion/obstinance? To assist you, I have every single one of my reddit motte posts archived in this google spreadsheet.
Then there's the point that someone claiming they are not making an argument is not the same as not making the argument. Arguments do not have to be explicitly made to be made- this is the purpose of metaphor, as well as allusion, or comparison, and especially insinuation, which are techniques you have used in previous iterations of your reoccurring hobby horse pasting and examples can be found here.
Can you cite a specific example of an allusion or insinuation that you believe I've made in a surreptitious manner? If explicitly disavowing an argument is insufficient for you, is there anything I can say that could possibly militate against the mind-reading? I'm often accused of holding positions I either never made or explicitly disavowed, and at some point I have to conclude that the reason people fabricate and refute arguments I've never made is borne out of frustration at apparently being unable to respond what I actually said. This post from @HlynkaCG remains the best example of this bizarre trend, where he's either lying about or hallucinating something I've never come close to saying.
As such, it remains appropriately helpful for anyone wishing to contest the background argument to ignore the bailey, which is raised to defend the motte.
Sure, I have an admitted interest in the overall 2020 election claims. If I made a post that aimed to claim that all of those were bullshit, then obviously pushing back on that is fair game. The reason I included that disclaimer was explicitly to avoid Gish galloping or similar distractions when discussing specifics. The scenario I have in mind is someone who believes that the 2020 election was stolen comes across the TTV claims I've made, but is frustrated because they realize they can't substantively rebut them. They're reluctant to admit that out loud, because they see arguments as soldiers and believe that conceding TTV to be liars will further erode their overall claims about the 2020 elections. Accordingly, their only viable response is evasion; doing everything possible to avoid discussing TTV directly, and instead preemptively changing to a different subject they believe to be more defensible.
Edit: I'm mindful that we've discussed many of these same issues a year ago almost to the day. I appreciate that you've tempered your accusations somewhat, and I nevertheless would be eager for specifics to support your claims.
Is the reason this case so bad based on the fact that the charges have never been pursued before, or is there also an affirmative defense of the alleged fraud?
More options
Context Copy link