site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  2yr ago (text post)   Edited 2yr ago   19147 thread views

USA Election Day 2022 Megathread

Tuesday November 8, 2022 is Election Day in the United States of America. In addition to Congressional "midterms" at the federal level, many state governors and other more local offices are up for grabs. Given how things shook out over Election Day 2020, things could get a little crazy.

...or, perhaps, not! But here's the Megathread for if they do. Talk about your local concerns, your national predictions, your suspicions re: election fraud and interference, how you plan to vote, anything election related is welcome here. Culture War thread rules apply, with the addition of Small-Scale Questions and election-related "Bare Links" allowed in this thread only (unfortunately, there will not be a subthread repository due to current technical limitations).

15
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

You describing this as poor etiquette potentially has some merit and I would be curious to hear more. From my perspective, I would not consider it poor etiquette if I was on the receiving end of the above post, as the scenario seems trivially easy to clear up (e.g. "Yep, looks like I was wrong on that point. My bad!"). I don't see making a mistake as indication of a personal failing so it shouldn't be something to be embarrassed by. To the extent that anyone who makes a mistake refuses to admit error, or to the extent a topic generates a pattern of errors skewing in the same direction, I think there is utility to shining a spotlight on it.

Regarding your substantive link, I see no issue with asserting something along the lines of "election officials had issues and concerns about using sharpies on ballots". That's fine, and defensible. Similarly, jfk posted a link to the Cyberninja report which appears to substantiate some claims about sharpies potentially bleeding through ballots (though Cyberninjas couldn't find a single ballot that was invalidated because of that). That's also fine, and defensible. But neither link can be used to support the trio of assertions (sharpiegate was real, votes were lost, the lost votes were trump votes) that DradisPing made, so it just strikes me as collateral to the issue. If assertions cannot be defended on their own, what's the relevance of bringing up evidence to support weaker tangentially-related assertions? The latter does not excuse the former, and the effort strikes me as an attempt to be "directionally correct".

You describing this as poor etiquette potentially has some merit and I would be curious to hear more. From my perspective, I would not consider it poor etiquette if I was on the receiving end of the above post, as the scenario seems trivially easy to clear up (e.g. "Yep, looks like I was wrong on that point. My bad!"). I don't see making a mistake as indication of a personal failing so it shouldn't be something to be embarrassed by. To the extent that anyone who makes a mistake refuses to admit error, or to the extent a topic generates a pattern of errors skewing in the same direction, I think there is utility to shining a spotlight on it.

It hasn't even been 24 hours. It's Wednesday in a weekly thread that starts on Monday. You say there's no embarrassment in making a mistake and I would like to believe you think that, but you not only posted a top level response to ensure everyone knows how wrong he is, you want to hold a flipping symposium on how he could be so wrong. And then instead of proving it by embarrassing yourself with an example of when you made a similar mistake in front of peers, you gave an example of a time you made a mistake about a bit of esoterica, of the biochemistry of a cow, affecting nothing and no one, as a result of reading too much about lifting.

But what really upsets me is that you didn't wait at all. I think people deserve 48 hours at least, this is a forum not instant messaging. Sometimes people don't have time to write a thousand words about the election or apologising and addressing how they could be so wrong. Sometimes it takes a while before you find the right words - I can't count the number of times I have regretted posting something a day later when I think of a better way to put it. (I am guaranteed to do so with this post I think.) Sometimes they're just not in the god damned mood. You don't get to decide they're refusing to admit they're wrong before a day has passed. If it's a pattern that's one thing, but even still you should wait a few days, get some more examples or just reply like normal.

Edit: lol it's Wednesday not Tuesday

And then instead of proving it by embarrassing yourself with an example of when you made a similar mistake in front of peers, you gave an example of a time you made a mistake about a bit of esoterica, of the biochemistry of a cow, affecting nothing and no one, as a result of reading too much about lifting.

This was the unintended take-away from my tiny story but I acknowledge your reading of it was reasonable. I've made other mistakes bigger than the example I used, but that was meant to be an illustration. Working backwards in time, one mistake I made was how I had previously heavily insinuated that Colin Wright was intentionally refusing to have his PayPal account restored as a way to grift more donations. I reached this belief based on how often he was shilling for donations and how he ignored my emails. After speaking to him further, I realized he had perfectly innocent reasons for having ignored me. I publicly stated that my suspicion was off-base.

Prior to that, I admitted error here: "I was wrong when I said @anti_dan 's claim about J6 defendants "held without bail for wandering in" was fictitious. At least three different people reasonably fit this qualification: Timothy Louis Hale-Cusanelli, Karl Dresch, Michael Curzio, and possibly others."

Both examples are from the last couple of weeks, so I'm sure there are others if you keep going back.

But what really upsets me is that you didn't wait at all.

I'm open to arguments that this was bad etiquette but I have not been swayed. For one, DradisPing's assertion was one made confidently, as a top-level post, and was central to their overall point about Maricopa County. Yet the only evidence they could cite was their "recollection". I think they had enough of an opportunity to correct the record, and in my post above I did not accuse them of refusing to admit wrong. Secondly, this is a very common pattern with election fraud claims, where they're uncritically presented and left unchallenged. I would want to see more hesitation from people before posting something that would take seconds to double check on a search engine.

I think they had enough of an opportunity to correct the record, and in my post above I did not accuse them of refusing to admit wrong.

This sentence doesn't make sense to me. Surely it's one or the other? If they aren't refusing to admit wrong why don't they get more of an opportunity to correct the record?

That's cool of you to list some of your own mistakes - very cool, and on a regular board I would consider the matter closed. But you are quite smart, so it would be a lot more impressive if you could please edit them into your op?

Because I thought more abstractly about it, and if I was trolling and I wanted to rub my superiority into someone's face - and I thought I had been caught in the act, I would have to dismantle part of my post to defuse the accusation of trolling. And I thought about what I would be willing to do, and I'd be happy to list personal flaws after the fact - as long as my op remained a shining monument to my superiority. I know this is how smart people think because the mods used to accuse me of doing it all the time before they realised I wasn't that smart.

If they aren't refusing to admit wrong why don't they get more of an opportunity to correct the record?

Sorry, that was confusing verbiage from me. I started by asking them to list their evidence. After they cited their recollection as the evidence, I concluded they were wrong. Only at that point would they need to go back and "correct the record" regarding their initial assertion. So far that hasn't happened yet so now I think I can finally say they're refusing to admit wrong.

so it would be a lot more impressive if you could please edit them into your op?

I already did! 6 hours before you asked :)

That is outrageously awesome man, cheers. I knew there was a reason I always felt comfortable talking to you and I am glad I wasn't mistaken. I still disagree about your timing but since I don't think you are being malicious I can agree to disagree :)

You describing this as poor etiquette potentially has some merit and I would be curious to hear more. From my perspective, I would not consider it poor etiquette if I was on the receiving end of the above post, as the scenario seems trivially easy to clear up (e.g. "Yep, looks like I was wrong on that point. My bad!"). I don't see making a mistake as indication of a personal failing so it shouldn't be something to be embarrassed by. To the extent that anyone who makes a mistake refuses to admit error, or to the extent a topic generates a pattern of errors skewing in the same direction, I think there is utility to shining a spotlight on it.

I agree with BadCivilization - it feels like bad etiquette to make a top post calling someone out this fast. I agree that people who make big claims as top level posts should respond to criticism. And I'm in favor of shining on light on people when they fail to respond. But this is too fast to accuse someone of intentionally ignoring your post. Give the person 24 hours, no?

I like arguing on the motte but I don't have notifications set up or anything. I don't think going dark during an argument always means I'm avoiding a strong point. I see this as a nonsynchronous medium. I would like to have a grace period.

I think your points about grace periods are fair. Does it change your mind that DradisPing already said the source of their claim was their recollection? To me that strikes me as enough of a final answer. The other relevant factor for me is that this fell under the election fraud penumbra which in my mind tends to have too many of these types of claims uncritically presented.

Does it change your mind that DradisPing already said the source of their claim was their recollection?

No. I recollect all kinds of shit vaguely, then search through and find a source. Sometimes I'm right after that, sometimes I'm wrong. But not sourcing it in one comment certainly doesn't mean there is no source.

I, also, find this kind of "tagging someone below to talk shit on them" top level post to be rude. If it happens occasionally, fine, but don't do it all the time.

That said, I have to laugh at the replies you get that are like "Fine @ymeshkout, do your evil lawyer things [like research and rhetoric], just because you have the better argument doesn't mean you're right!"

But not sourcing it in one comment certainly doesn't mean there is no source.

I agree with this. The reason I chose to highlight DradisPing's claim is that it was central to their thesis about Maricopa County up to some bullshit again. Maybe the thesis remains true, but it's still fair game to point out that someone's core premise appears faulty. I don't think I'm asking too much of people here: if you want to post an argument, it's not unreasonable to expect people to do some very basic homework first.

Does it change your mind that DradisPing already said the source of their claim was their recollection? To me that strikes me as enough of a final answer. The other relevant factor for me is that this fell under the election fraud penumbra which in my mind tends to have too many of these types of claims uncritically presented.

Those are both good points. I think you're right that you have justification for posting a top level post about DradisPing's response and are not breaking etiquette.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats