[ytwySXpMbS]

It may not be a good way of persuading people, but it seems there’s no good way of persuading you as you simply refuse to be persuaded. We could argue about the specifics all day, but I think you should ask yourself why you want it to be true. Do you seek community? Are you angry inside and need an outlet?

Here’s a video[1]. Of course from your perspective, your position makes perfect sense and isn’t extreme, and by no means am I calling you a white supremacist, but you should watch and see if you relate in any way. Please don’t dismiss it out of hand, there’s valuable lessons in it that apply to everyone, not just former white supremacists.

[1] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SSH5EY-W5oM

[chordalkeyboard]

> It may not be a good way of persuading people, but it seems there’s no good way of persuading you as you simply refuse to be persuaded.

Have you considered pretending for a moment that my perspective is valid instead of dismissing me like this? I'm aware that we still disagree, that's because of a variety of factors including the fact that we both, as humans, suffer from cognitive biases. But assuming that I can't be reasoned with merely because you've been unable to respond to my arguments isn't getting either of us closer to understanding each other.

> We could argue about the specifics all day, but I think you should ask yourself why you want it to be true.

I don't want it to be true, I don't want any of this crap to be true, the candidates we had are horrible (not speaking ill of Professor Jorgenson, mind you). I'd prefer that there was a reasonable explanation but the problem with this where there's evidence that raises suspicions but no reasonable response is that the losing side feels disenfranchised and that's bad for the country. We want everyone to feel as though their voice was heard.

> Do you seek community?

No I have a decent social life.

> Are you angry inside and need an outlet?

No, I'm fine.

> Of course from your perspective, your position makes perfect sense and isn’t extreme,

Thanks for the video, watching it now.

[ytwySXpMbS]

I’m sure you’ve reviewed the evidence and have come to your own conclusions, which is reasonable. I assume you trust what Trump says as he’s the biggest supporter of the election fraud allegations, but tell me if I’m wrong. My problem is I don’t trust at all what Trump says, from my perspective he doesn’t understand you can’t inject bleach, refuses to disapprove of the Proud Boys, etc. So when he says there’s election fraud, I don’t believe him.

Maybe you’re in a position where you do believe him. His rhetoric is such that if you believe him, he tries to get you to believe only him, sowing distrust in news organisations and election officials.

I think another problem is it’s very hard to disprove a negative. For example, prove that there isn’t a spy satellite orbiting earth. You can always say “well what about that other satellite, what about this area of space?”. It’s unknowable, and therefore comes down to who you trust. If you look up Trump’s factual inaccuracies so far, unless you already have, then you’ll have a clearer picture on which to base your trust.

[chordalkeyboard]

> I assume you trust what Trump says as he’s the biggest supporter of the election fraud

No further than I can throw him, he's ridiculous.

> So when he says there’s election fraud, I don’t believe him.

Thats fair. What are your priors on election fraud in general? Do you think it happens or nah?

> I think another problem is it’s very hard to disprove a negative.

I agree, the system is not set up in order to demonstrate election integrity. Everything is on the basis of trust. So we get this scenario where things look like fraud, but can't be proven to be fraudulent because no one is trying to prevent or catch fraud, and then when people have reasonable suspicions because of this, people say "this is normal" and "you can't prove fraud happened" but when you point out things that suggest fraud may have occurred, there's no way to disprove that.

> It’s unknowable, and therefore comes down to who you trust.

Well that's kind of the point, I don't trust people I don't know. I don't trust people to be honest when no one is looking. I don't trust vote fraudsters to be honest about their behavior. And I think its foolish to expect that they would be.

> If you look up Trump’s factual inaccuracies so far, unless you already have, then you’ll have a clearer picture on which to base your trust.

This doesn't rely on trump's trustworthiness (or lack thereof), but publicly available evidence and the public record.

[ytwySXpMbS]

Well we agree on Trump at least :). I think election fraud does happen at a low level and is detected, usually in most US elections they report a low level of fraud, but nothing that would swing an election. That’s very interesting, why don’t you trust people to be honest? I personally believe in the good of people, that >90% of people are good people who want to do the right thing. So when people without skin in the game or anti-Biden people say there was no election fraud, I trust them. This is why I believe Raffensperger. But I’d be very interested to hear why you don’t trust people you don’t know?

[chordalkeyboard]

> I think election fraud does happen at a low level and is detected, usually in most US elections they report a low level of fraud, but nothing that would swing an election.

It doesn't take much fraud to swing an election and, aside from 2020, both 1960 and 2000 are suspect. The main thing is that how would you know if there was election fraud? There would be some evidence. You might see poll workers acting strangely around ballots. You might have ballots without a proper chain of custody. You might have reports by poll watchers that they weren't allowed to do their jobs. Well, all of those are present. So we have reason to suspect there might have been vote fraud. Its that simple.

> That’s very interesting, why don’t you trust people to be honest?

Because they are capable of dishonesty so there's no reason to assume they are trustworthy. The same reason I lock my door at night and use long passwords on my accounts.

> I personally believe in the good of people, that >90% of people are good people who want to do the right thing.

My understanding of human nature leads me to consider that naive. Please don't take offense, I'm just being forthright.

> So when people without skin in the game or anti-Biden people say there was no election fraud, I trust them.

Thats a different kind of error, how would those people be in a position to know if there was fraud?

> This is why I believe Raffensperger. But I’d be very interested to hear why you don’t trust people you don’t know?

Because they haven't earned my trust. They haven't shown any reason to be trustworthy. People lie and cheat all the time. Sometimes they even lie, cheat, and steal when its easier and more productive to be honest. Since people lie cheat and steal, if you show me a person, I'm going to be aware of their potential to lie, cheat, and steal. Its that simple.

[netsharc]

On the same token, this guy talks about Islamic radicalization. And I can only see parallels with white radicalization in the US: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlbirlSA-dc