2024

[twocoach]

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... -features/

"Baseless theories"

The thing is most of these things are not baseless, but surrounded by a ridiculous amount of evidence

I have a different definition of the word "evidence" than most conspiracy theorists. Evidence is something that can be proven but most conspiracy theorists have a lower bar. If it sounds good and leads to the conclusion that they believe then they call it "evidence" even if direct facts are provided to prove that it is not actually a fact.

You can't just submit any old gun as evidence in a murder case. It has to be proven via real facts to have been involved in the case in question. Otherwise, you are tainting the jury with material that will sway their opinion despite not being relevant to the case. And that's what happens with conspiracy theorists. They accept in unverified information, assign it in their brains as a relevant fact (even though it isn't) and off they go to form their conclusions.

[MICHHAWK]

you also believe that any person you disagree with is a "conspiracy theorist."

[twocoach]

you also believe that any person you disagree with is a "conspiracy theorist."

That is categorically false and just more overly dramatic nonsense you tell yourself.

[jfish26]

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... -features/

"Baseless theories"

The thing is most of these things are not baseless, but surrounded by a ridiculous amount of evidence

I have a different definition of the word "evidence" than most conspiracy theorists. Evidence is something that can be proven but most conspiracy theorists have a lower bar. If it sounds good and leads to the conclusion that they believe then they call it "evidence" even if direct facts are provided to prove that it is not actually a fact.

You can't just submit any old gun as evidence in a murder case. It has to be proven via real facts to have been involved in the case in question. Otherwise, you are tainting the jury with material that will sway their opinion despite not being relevant to the case. And that's what happens with conspiracy theorists. They accept in unverified information, assign it in their brains as a relevant fact (even though it isn't) and off they go to form their conclusions.

And, importantly, they very often mistake (or even present) a lack of definitive proof of something, as proof of the opposite of the thing (or vice versa).

This stuff isn't novel or complicated. The playbook is well-known.

https://blog.hubspot.com/marketing/comm ... -fallacies

[jfish26]

you also believe that any person you disagree with is a "conspiracy theorist."

That is categorically false and just more overly dramatic nonsense you tell yourself.

Some people that disagree with me are conspiracy theorists.

All people that are conspiracy theorists are conspiracy theorists.

[Shirley]

Person of the Year?

On this week's unfiltered video version of Prof G Markets, Scott breaks down what the latest inflation data means for the American economy.

[twocoach]

you also believe that any person you disagree with is a "conspiracy theorist."

That is categorically false and just more overly dramatic nonsense you tell yourself.

Some people that disagree with me are conspiracy theorists.

All people that are conspiracy theorists are conspiracy theorists.

Heck, I probably even agree with conspiracy theorists on some things. It's just the whole "if this then THIS" thing that gets carried away.

Like with many other things, current social media trends seem to have made the world of conspiracy theorists worse. There is no doubt a rush to be the first person to connect the dots and with no negative consequences ever faced for being completely wrong, there is no need or desire to even bother to really fact check anything or even try to poke holes in it logically. It's just a competition to who can put together the wildest, most complicated story the fastest.

[jfish26]

That is categorically false and just more overly dramatic nonsense you tell yourself.

Some people that disagree with me are conspiracy theorists.

All people that are conspiracy theorists are conspiracy theorists.

Heck, I probably even agree with conspiracy theorists on some things. It's just the whole "if this then THIS" thing that gets carried away.

Like with many other things, current social media trends seem to have made the world of conspiracy theorists worse. There is no doubt a rush to be the first person to connect the dots and with no negative consequences ever faced for being completely wrong, there is no need or desire to even bother to really fact check anything or even try to poke holes in it logically. It's just a competition to who can put together the wildest, most complicated story the fastest.

All of it divorced from consequences and accountability - or even awareness that internet sleuthing and conspiracy theorizing has consequences.

"I'm just asking questions" is the rhetorical equivalent of "well I'm a responsible gun owner!"

Toss enough polluted information into an ecosystem of 350 million fallible humans, and some meaningful number of them will do highly irresponsible things with (on the griftER side) or because of (on the griftED side) that polluted information.

It's not a crime to BE curious or gullible or what have you. But is very much is a crime to defraud people, to take advantage of vulnerable people.

(I'd note that it would be hilarious, if it wasn't so sad, that the YOU ALL ARE NOT PAYING ENOUGH ATTENTION TO EXPLOITATION crowd also seems to be the TELLING ME I'M BEING GRIFTED IS PATERNALISTIC, SO WHAT YOU SAY IS CATEGORICALLY INVALID crowd.)

[twocoach]

Some people that disagree with me are conspiracy theorists.

All people that are conspiracy theorists are conspiracy theorists.

Heck, I probably even agree with conspiracy theorists on some things. It's just the whole "if this then THIS" thing that gets carried away.

Like with many other things, current social media trends seem to have made the world of conspiracy theorists worse. There is no doubt a rush to be the first person to connect the dots and with no negative consequences ever faced for being completely wrong, there is no need or desire to even bother to really fact check anything or even try to poke holes in it logically. It's just a competition to who can put together the wildest, most complicated story the fastest.

All of it divorced from consequences and accountability - or even awareness that internet sleuthing and conspiracy theorizing has consequences.

"I'm just asking questions" is the rhetorical equivalent of "well I'm a responsible gun owner!"

Toss enough polluted information into an ecosystem of 350 million fallible humans, and some meaningful number of them will do highly irresponsible things with (on the griftER side) or because of (on the griftED side) that polluted information.

It's not a crime to BE curious or gullible or what have you. But is very much is a crime to defraud people, to take advantage of vulnerable people.

(I'd note that it would be hilarious, if it wasn't so sad, that the YOU ALL ARE NOT PAYING ENOUGH ATTENTION TO EXPLOITATION crowd also seems to be the TELLING ME I'M BEING GRIFTED IS PATERNALISTIC, SO WHAT YOU SAY IS CATEGORICALLY INVALID crowd.)

They've been told by the sources of the sewage that accepting their sewage as truth makes them enlightened and informed and that's apparently all it takes to stop noticing the unpleasant smell.

[Shirley]

What a piece of shit.

Thanks, republicans. You could have put a stop to this, if you weren't such cowards.

[Overlander]

What a piece of shit.

Thanks, republicans. You could have put a stop to this, if you weren't such cowards.

Orwellian

[jfish26]

This is thoughtful.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... op-doomed/

Before going down the road to political doom, Republicans should understand how refusing to jettison Trump as their standard-bearer would play out. The so-called E. Jean Carroll II trial is scheduled for January. The Manhattan criminal trial is set for March, but even a conviction there might not move the GOP primary electorate. (Trivial! Set up!) The Mar-a-Lago documents case won’t begin before May. (All are subject to delay.) Meanwhile, the GOP presidential primary will have gotten underway in January and will run through March. Republicans might crown a presumptive winner by early May (as happened in 2016), even before the Mar-a-Lago trial concludes.

Without verdicts in the Jan. 6 cases and with appeals pending in any others (e.g., New York, Florida), the chances that a Republican National Convention in July filled with Trump-pledged delegates experiencing a spasm of buyer’s remorse (and overturning the primary winner) are slight. (Think of that being as probable as House Speaker Kevin McCarthy growing a spine or the party rediscovering the charms of moderate governors).

The GOP could very well be saddled with a nominee who has been indicted multiple times and perhaps convicted more than once. They would be betting that millions of voters who didn’t vote for him last time would vote for an indicted or possibly convicted nominee who spends most of his time railing about his plight. [emphasis in original]

And, keep in mind, even without the legal baggage, Trump would face an uphill climb to match his 2016 results. Democratic pollster Celinda Lake and documentary filmmaker Mac Heller recently wrote for The Post that “between Trump’s election in 2016 and the 2024 election, the number of Gen Z (born in the late 1990s and early 2010s) voters will have advanced by a net 52 million against older people.” Put differently, the 2024 electorate will be younger and more Democratic — by a lot — than the electorate that chose Trump in 2016. The GOP will be pleading with a less Trump-friendly electorate to ignore his alleged crime spree and reelect the Jan. 6 instigator.

If it seems fantastical, even unimaginable, that a party would put itself in such a position, remember this is a party that obsesses over Hunter Biden, elevates to prominence Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) and still won’t admit that Joe Biden won the White House in 2020. Maybe it’s time to acknowledge that, barring an epiphany, the GOP’s self-delusion is risking a political wipeout that will take out more than its disastrous nominee. And it won’t be able to claim it wasn’t warned.

[twocoach]

This is thoughtful.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... op-doomed/

Before going down the road to political doom, Republicans should understand how refusing to jettison Trump as their standard-bearer would play out. The so-called E. Jean Carroll II trial is scheduled for January. The Manhattan criminal trial is set for March, but even a conviction there might not move the GOP primary electorate. (Trivial! Set up!) The Mar-a-Lago documents case won’t begin before May. (All are subject to delay.) Meanwhile, the GOP presidential primary will have gotten underway in January and will run through March. Republicans might crown a presumptive winner by early May (as happened in 2016), even before the Mar-a-Lago trial concludes.

Without verdicts in the Jan. 6 cases and with appeals pending in any others (e.g., New York, Florida), the chances that a Republican National Convention in July filled with Trump-pledged delegates experiencing a spasm of buyer’s remorse (and overturning the primary winner) are slight. (Think of that being as probable as House Speaker Kevin McCarthy growing a spine or the party rediscovering the charms of moderate governors).

The GOP could very well be saddled with a nominee who has been indicted multiple times and perhaps convicted more than once. They would be betting that millions of voters who didn’t vote for him last time would vote for an indicted or possibly convicted nominee who spends most of his time railing about his plight. [emphasis in original]

And, keep in mind, even without the legal baggage, Trump would face an uphill climb to match his 2016 results. Democratic pollster Celinda Lake and documentary filmmaker Mac Heller recently wrote for The Post that “between Trump’s election in 2016 and the 2024 election, the number of Gen Z (born in the late 1990s and early 2010s) voters will have advanced by a net 52 million against older people.” Put differently, the 2024 electorate will be younger and more Democratic — by a lot — than the electorate that chose Trump in 2016. The GOP will be pleading with a less Trump-friendly electorate to ignore his alleged crime spree and reelect the Jan. 6 instigator.

If it seems fantastical, even unimaginable, that a party would put itself in such a position, remember this is a party that obsesses over Hunter Biden, elevates to prominence Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) and still won’t admit that Joe Biden won the White House in 2020. Maybe it’s time to acknowledge that, barring an epiphany, the GOP’s self-delusion is risking a political wipeout that will take out more than its disastrous nominee. And it won’t be able to claim it wasn’t warned.

The only "problem" is that all this legal trouble seems to have been turned into a badge of honor by his base. Trump cannot do wrong in their eyes. Their too far down the rabbit hole to back out now. Their digital personas are too built around this to admit they were wrong.

[KUTradition]

so long as turn-out remains high, they’ll all be shown to be loosers

[ousdahl]

Yea.

And that wapo article is thoughtful, yea, but if the dem strategy to win is to bank on young voters turning out (for a dood even older than Trump, who young voters perceive as may or may not having done much for young voters either way), buckle up.

But yea, the bigger narrative still prob is the GOP just can’t quit Trump.

[KUTradition]

much like the last election, i’d imagine the anti-trump motivation will be just as strong, if not stronger, than the pro-Biden motivation

[jfish26]

Yea.

And that wapo article is thoughtful, yea, but if the dem strategy to win is to bank on young voters turning out (for a dood even older than Trump, who young voters perceive as may or may not having done much for young voters either way), buckle up.

But yea, the bigger narrative still prob is the GOP just can’t quit Trump.

I would suggest that concern about Biden’s age, in the context of the general, is a sign that R propaganda is working.

[Sparko]

The Barbie Movie is all we need to energize young people to vote against MAGA. Apparently. Woke wokeness of wokocity. Heh. My daughter loved the movie.

[ousdahl]

Yea.

And that wapo article is thoughtful, yea, but if the dem strategy to win is to bank on young voters turning out (for a dood even older than Trump, who young voters perceive as may or may not having done much for young voters either way), buckle up.

But yea, the bigger narrative still prob is the GOP just can’t quit Trump.

I would suggest that concern about Biden’s age, in the context of the general, is a sign that R propaganda is working.

Ok, sure

but R propaganda or not, let’s not downplay the fact Biden is, and acts, old as dirt.

Trump too!

It’s not propagandish to be concerned about these things.

[KUTradition]

i’m not concerned because of any cognitive decline, necessarily

my concern is that i don’t think Harris is up to it, should Biden croak