[bonestormii_]

It's crazy. I started writing why I disagreed based on my visceral reaction to the topic. But as I constructed my arguments, they were not sound. So I suppose I agree? Hm.

The above paragraph is sincere--that did happen. And interestingly, it shows the power of consuming the opposing view point. We all know that the government is currently spewing lies, and it is indeed a disgusting and corrosive thing. I want to silence it, but it's easy enough to contempt it from a distance. Let the truth and the lies be heard so that we as a people will grow wise to it all.

[timeeater]

Personally I am not from the US, and I don't know that the government is spewing lies. What makes you so sure? And if you are so sure, why are you worried people could be swayed by the lies - why not make them equally sure with the information you have?

However, I am happy with letting the courts decide. Where is the problem?

I have seen lies from all big political parties in the US.

[kipchak]

More broadly, I think the trouble is that "lies" are often more appealing than truths by design, while truth is what it is. For example, some Americans may have been swayed to support the Gulf War by the Nayirah testimony, or in 2003 by Saddam Hussein's alleged people shredder. I don't think this justifies censorship, but the ability to sharpen people's BS filter and the amount of bunk they may receive is somewhat asymmetrical, echoing Goering's quote from the Nuremburg trials.

[1] http://www.mit.edu/people/fuller/peace/war_goering.html

[timeeater]

But weren't those lies perpetuated by mainstream media? Where, if not YouTube, would you find the counter narratives? And wouldn't people who believe the MSM not then considered the YouTube debunking to be "lies" and called for censorship?

[kipchak]

Unfortunately as YouTube and the rest of the internet has grown larger, and more consolidated, [1] the positions allowed have narrowed in scope and counter narratives have become less acceptable. While websites with counter narratives (WikiSpooks for example) do exist, they're generally not very visible anymore. I think what you're describing is largely what is happening will happen, and those who present counter narratives will be de-legitimized, including and conflating both those who are genuinely illegitimate (Dr. Gene Ray/time cube) and those who aren't.

The closest alternative I can see is reading media with opposing spin (People's Daily, RT) and yours and hoping together they composite a clearer picture. For example I would not expect to see this [2] headline in a US paper.

[1]https://www.ncta.com/sites/default/files/platform-images/wp-...

[2]https://canada.constructconnect.com/dcn/news/others/2020/05/...

[bra-ket]

it's funny the lies this time are coming not from the government but from the opposition and their propaganda machinery.

I'd never consider myself government supporter, but with Trump it's like the last bastion before the country is overrun with far-left SJW hordes swayed by misinformation.

It's ironic the ultimate win for democracy manifests itself in stolen elections.

[Eldt]

It's funny how from my perspective the reality is quite nearly the exact opposite of what you puport

[bra-ket]

yeah, there are 80M people like you and just 74M like me, congratulations.

Both groups are influenced by media and social circles but the first group tends to trust others opinions more, methinks.

The fact mainstream media was pretty much unified in anti-Trump stance strengthen that theory.

If every day for 4 years you hear just how bad is the orange man (from someone you trust) it would definitely shape a certain reality in ones mind.

[Applejinx]

Well, I have a belief system that's coherent and arrived at through my personal experience, which had me thinking very poorly of the 'orange man' LONG before it became a political thing. In fact, I'm damn horrified at how far the guy got, and I think I understand quite well how it was done.

It's not just some abstract 'otherwise neutral orange man' whose identity is entirely constructed by news media, and that's a strange argument to make. I think many people thought 'Al Capone bad' too, particularly if he'd robbed them or shot somebody they liked. I'm sure the greedy news media HELPED people get mad at Al Capone, and that there were redeeming factors in the guy, but the notion that there were automatically as many redeeming factors in Capone as in everybody else is NOT sensible. Maybe he just was mean, and sucked.

Likewise with 'orange man'. Way before he was a political figure, he was mean and sucked REALLY bad relative to my sense of how things work in the world. Some people just suck very, very much.

If you assume anyone who has success automatically does not suck, I admire your optimism but I sure don't share it. Seems to me that without considerable oversight, the opposite is usually true, and that the worst people, entities, companies etc. win. Hence, the invention of means of oversight, and the attempt to codify what's good and bad.

[FastQ]

Yeah, I think this comes back to the false balance. Just because a large portion of the mainstream news dislikes someone doesn't make them biased. Should you trust every story they write about him? Probably not. Is he clearly a demagogue, as can be seen in his unedited speeches? Absolutely. Do other politicians lie? Yeah. Does he lie a lot more brashly and obviously? I'd say so. So it's a bit of a crying wolf situation. It fits his behavior patterns quite clearly to pick up on conspiracy theories, simultaneously exploiting them for his own benefit and seemingly being convinced by them. It also fits the behavior patterns of established Republicans to avoid speaking out against him lest their radical base turns against them, without making strong stances unless it fits their agenda as well. If this so happened to be an instance where orange man right, then I think a lot of reasonable people have dismissed that possibility long ago because of the firehose of misinformation he has historically put out.

[timeeater]

"I have a belief system that's coherent and arrived at through my personal experience"

Other people also have coherent belief systems they arrived at through their personal experience, that contradict yours.

[adamsea]

You are trying to ignore facts.

Fact:

- He never shared his tax returns - He is a sexual predator - He supports white supremacy - He’s incredibly corrupt

Let’s talk about facts.

[bra-ket]

thanks for proving my point.

[adamsea]

I think that anyone who doesn't believe that the election was legitimate - i.e. that no meaningful fraud occurred - should be banned from the HN community.

Their "arguments" are full of shit and are a bunch of pseudo-philosophical, pseudo-analytical, pseudo-objective cant.

Their "evidence" is literally disinformation / propaganda.

They act exactly like those crypto-racists who know that their true belief would be deemed unpalatable or unacceptable by the community so they'll blow as much smoke around as possible without ever stepping out to say what they're actually driving towards.

Enough is enough. It's clearly dangerous to allow these views the shroud of legitimacy by giving them space in the public square. It's gone so far that anything other than a rejection functions as a legitimization.

By allowing the lie of election fraud to be presented as just another thing to be discussed on HN, HN is enabling those people and their cause, which is to overturn the results of a legitimate election.

The irony is anyone was to be banned it would probably be me for making this comment. Think on that! ; )