[Auracle]

This is a weird argument to make when the lab leak “conspiracy” was censored the same way.

Also, there was election fraud. There always is. Was it enough to turn the election? Who knows. To say that people shouldn’t be able to discuss it is mind-boggling to me. The only way we can have trust in our election process is if we can ask questions.

[stouset]

> To say that people shouldn’t be able to discuss it is mind-boggling to me.

This is a wild misrepresentation of the opposing perspective. Nobody is arguing that we can't discuss election fraud.

The argument—which I'm sure you are actually aware—is that there needs to be some level of credibility to the idea that a) fraud occurred, and b) that it happened in meaningful quantities before we spend significant time, cost, and effort in investigating claims.

Simply having lost is not a credible claim to investigate widespread fraud. Finding one or two isolated cases in elections with margins of thousands or more votes is not a credible claim to investigate widespread fraud.

Further, fraud cannot simply be a claim that is made and then perpetually reinvestigated by decreasingly-reputable third parties until you are able to invalidate an election whose outcome you disagree with.

[ipaddr]

Stopping people talking about election fraud because you don't feel a certain credibility has been granted is censorship.

Whatever gatekeeping rules you agree or don't with shouldn't matter. The gatekeeping is the problem. Being afraid of ideas and shutting down anyone who doesn't speak about approved topics is the issue not whether your gatekeeping rules have been met.

[stouset]

> Stopping people talking about election fraud because you don't feel a certain credibility has been granted is censorship.

Zero people are being stopped from talking about election fraud. You and I are sitting here discussion election fraud right now. The only thing that has been stopped is investigations of claims of widespread fraud for which there is virtually zero evidence.

This is precisely the kind of wild misrepresentation that people—including myself—are tired of fighting. If you need to misrepresent your opponent in order to defeat them, maybe you should reflect: are we the baddies?

[dnissley]

> This is a wild misrepresentation of the opposing perspective. Nobody is arguing that we can't discuss election fraud.

The comment 2 levels up by eggsmediumrare seems to be arguing exactly that.

[war1025]

> This is a wild misrepresentation of the opposing perspective.

I think that's currently how the game is played. You can try to be better than that, but then the other side wins because they are still happy to play dirty.