- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Sean Hannity Testifies He Never Believed The 2020 Election Was Fraudulent
Posted on 12/23/22 at 9:10 pm to Flats
Posted on 12/23/22 at 9:10 pm to Flats
quote:
therwise he couldn't protect his self-identity that conforms to his group norm, and that's so important to people it drives them to believe things that deep down they know aren't true.
This describes the last 15 years since Jug Ears was in office.
Down is up and up is down
girls are boys and boys are girls
some are cats
This post was edited on 12/23/22 at 9:11 pm
0
Posted on 12/23/22 at 9:14 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
so it makes good sense to plug into networks which have better epistemic practices (things like institutions that set high standards for research, following track records of performance, editorial practices, accountability, ethical codes, peer review, etc.)
You think those still exist in the political realm in 2022? Really? Should we discuss the pee tapes, the Mueller report or FISA warrants? Tell me which institutions you're placing your trust in.
When I say beliefs, I'm not talking about an article that says "fraud happened in Atlanta", and I read that, so I believe it. I'm talking about looking at commonly accepted facts (the Dem ground game, the massive push for mail out ballots, statistical anomalies, etc) and reaching a reasonable conclusion. There isn't a "guru" I've gotten this information from. I know that goes against your preconceived notions, but there it is, and I don't think I'm unique.
You seem pretty determined to denigrate anybody who believes differently than you about the election. They either don't really believe it, or they only believe it because of peer pressure, or they seek out sources that affirm what they already think, etc etc etc. You may phrase it more politely than the average poster but you say the same bullshite that Keith Olberman (or Hank) might say about people he disagrees with.
Posted on 12/23/22 at 9:31 pm to Flats
I only have relative expertise in a couple of narrow areas and in both of those areas I've learned enough to know that there are others who know lots more than me that I should mostly defer to when they agree with each other. In those areas, I know enough to know what I don't know.
But in most areas (of which there are hundreds or thousands of things in which it would help us to be informed about), we don't know enough to really assess our own competence. It is incredibly easy to get pilled and believe you understand more than you do. It's ubiquitous around here and continues to happen to me even as I catch myself doing it.
But in most areas (of which there are hundreds or thousands of things in which it would help us to be informed about), we don't know enough to really assess our own competence. It is incredibly easy to get pilled and believe you understand more than you do. It's ubiquitous around here and continues to happen to me even as I catch myself doing it.
Posted on 12/23/22 at 9:32 pm to TigerDoc
Damn y’all hate when dudes say the obvious
Posted on 12/23/22 at 9:35 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
It is incredibly easy to get pilled and believe you understand more than you do.
Rush always said it's always politics 100% of the time.
You will never lose your way if you remember this and look at everything DC related through this lens.
Posted on 12/23/22 at 9:39 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
I only have relative expertise in a couple of narrow areas and in both of those areas I've learned enough to know that there are others who know lots more than me that I should mostly defer to when they agree with each other. In those areas, I know enough to know what I don't know.
I'll ask again: you've reached the belief that there was no organized fraud in 2020. Which institutions did you rely on for information that led you to that belief?
Posted on 12/23/22 at 9:39 pm to loogaroo
quote:
Rush always said it's always politics 100% of the time.
Yes! He said the "4 pillars of deceit" were science, academia, journalism, and media and he argued that they were essentially all propaganda organs of the left and the modern right has tried to divorce itself from them and attempt to create simulacra of them and the result is outcomes like high upvote totals on statements like "I'm going to start refusing all vaccines from pharmaceutical companies".
Posted on 12/23/22 at 9:42 pm to Flats
1. The courts - there were no cases filed that even alleged this, just sham stuff from Rudy & company.
2. the media backed by editorial staffs, fact checkers, legal depts - meanwhile, RW networks were punished for how they handled dominion.
3. academic political scientists who follow elections.
4. testimony from the atty general of US, Trump campaign & RNC folks when under oath.
BTW, the way this is elided by big lie proponents is with motivated reasoning & alleging conspiracies between/amongst all of the above to cast doubt on them and their conclusions. But while those conspiracies are alleged, none are ever proven. In fact, it's better to say that the conspiracies aren't well-alleged, but just teased and (here's a tell) no one here expects anything to come from it ("nothing is going to happen") - people here believe in the conspiracy for the group-identity benefits as much as for anything else. They work better as cope and to bond with each other than as actual proposed causal explanations that will evidence themselves in the world.
2. the media backed by editorial staffs, fact checkers, legal depts - meanwhile, RW networks were punished for how they handled dominion.
3. academic political scientists who follow elections.
4. testimony from the atty general of US, Trump campaign & RNC folks when under oath.
BTW, the way this is elided by big lie proponents is with motivated reasoning & alleging conspiracies between/amongst all of the above to cast doubt on them and their conclusions. But while those conspiracies are alleged, none are ever proven. In fact, it's better to say that the conspiracies aren't well-alleged, but just teased and (here's a tell) no one here expects anything to come from it ("nothing is going to happen") - people here believe in the conspiracy for the group-identity benefits as much as for anything else. They work better as cope and to bond with each other than as actual proposed causal explanations that will evidence themselves in the world.
This post was edited on 12/24/22 at 8:00 am
Posted on 12/23/22 at 9:47 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
1. The courts - there were no cases filed that even alleged this, just sham stuff from Rudy & company.
2. the media backed by editorial staffs, fact checkers, legal depts - meanwhile, RW networks were punished for how they handled dominion.
3. academic political scientists who follow elections.
Do you believe it's possible that substantial fraud could be perpetrated in a US national election that cannot be legally established/proven in court given how/who investigates them, how elections work, and how courts work?
Posted on 12/23/22 at 9:50 pm to David_DJS
If it can't be proven, what should we do about it?
Posted on 12/23/22 at 9:52 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
If it can't be proven, what should we do about it?
We can't just give up.
They win by pure intimidation. That's their whole game.
This post was edited on 12/23/22 at 9:55 pm
Posted on 12/23/22 at 9:56 pm to loogaroo
I agree, but I have a different concept of what not giving up means. IMO, it's about holding knowledge-institutions to account by taking them seriously instead of shitting on them and jerking ourselves off thinking we're owning them by calling them propaganda.
Posted on 12/23/22 at 9:57 pm to TigerDoc
The judiciary, the media and “political scientists”? You think they’re giving you accurate information totally divorced from political bias? Are you serious?
You’re full of shite. You have no idea why people believe what they believe. It’s a very tired, juvenile fallacious attempt at an argument. It’s a combination of the genetic fallacy and appeal to ridicule.
quote:
people believe in the conspiracy for the group-identity benefits as much as for anything else.
You’re full of shite. You have no idea why people believe what they believe. It’s a very tired, juvenile fallacious attempt at an argument. It’s a combination of the genetic fallacy and appeal to ridicule.
Posted on 12/23/22 at 9:58 pm to Flats
You've hung in a long time before getting to that. Thanks for your patience, Flats.
Posted on 12/23/22 at 10:00 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
If it can't be proven, what should we do about it?
You didn't answer my question. Do you believe it's possible that substantial fraud can occur that has zero chance of ever being proven in a court of law?
Posted on 12/23/22 at 10:02 pm to David_DJS
It is metaphysically possible, but highly implausible.
Now what should we do about unprovable massive election fraud?
Now what should we do about unprovable massive election fraud?
Posted on 12/23/22 at 10:04 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
You've hung in a long time before getting to that.
I should have responded to you in kind earlier, Carnac.
Posted on 12/23/22 at 10:05 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
Now what should we do about unprovable massive election fraud?
Obviously, there needs to be changes made to election laws and how elections are run, monitored/checked for fraud, and what the courts are supposed to do with a bad election.
Posted on 12/23/22 at 10:07 pm to David_DJS
quote:
Do you believe it's possible that substantial fraud can occur that has zero chance of ever being proven in a court of law?
The attorney in the Arizona case essentially admitted that invalid ballots were counted. CNN told him there was no fraud, though.
Posted on 12/23/22 at 10:09 pm to David_DJS
You think there are policy changes that would make the implausible unprovable massive election conspiracy fraud impossible?
How would we know if it worked?
How would we know if it worked?
Page 6 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News