Comment by chordalkeyboard | Hacker News Reader

Comment by chordalkeyboard | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

chordalkeyboard

> You should watch a documentary about flat-earthers, because you sound like one. Or a 9/11-truther. If someone says something that disagrees with your beliefs, you don't think "Maybe what I've believed so far is wrong?", you think "They're also part of the lie!".

Do you think this is a good way of persuading people to question themselves?

> I saw your fellow conspiracy theorists's YouTube analysis of the "thumbdrive hand-off".

I'm not sure I appreciate being associated with whoever but thank you for watching the video.

> It's not even clear it's a thumbdrive in her hand.

Ok, perhaps. What else was she attempting to steal from the election building?

> And the logic leap is incredible. How does this "hand-off" mean election fraud?

For some reason, votes are stored on removable storage media. There's no incredible leap of logic to understand that sneaking one of these drives out and modifying it or losing it without affecting the chain of custody or being seen would be a component of vote fraud. This appears to be that, therefore when someone asks for video evidence that suggests there might have been vote fraud, here is an example. But if you don't care about election integrity then its probably super boring anyway so don't fret yourself.

> Did you watch another video of someone on the Internet saying "It means this, it can mean this", etc, and if so, why hasn't it been investigated?

No, its pretty obvious what the logical implications are. And I don't know why it hasn't been investigated, probably because the voting system isn't even set up to defend against this type of fraud.

thanks for the link, very interesting.

> I'm not sure I appreciate being associated with whoever but thank you for watching the video.

If someone seriously posts "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" I'm going to associate them with 9/11 truthers.

> Ok, perhaps. What else was she attempting to steal from the election building?

You (or the allegers) are just creating a narrative that's convenient for you/them! And filling in the details. We don't even see them leave the building!

Here's another one: the lady on the left gave the other one her car keys, and the girl and guy were about to sneak off to the carpark to make out. Or, it was a bag of weed, and they're about to go to the back of the building and get high.

Did you even confirm how the votes are stored? There are boxes with United States Postal Service in the background. So surely they're counting mail ballots. There are no computers on the desks, so, it doesn't seem the results of the counted mail ballots are being stored digitally. Do these 3 look like master hackers, or is it so easy to tamper with the digital files that it's plausible anyone (including many in republican areas) could do it, but you've only "caught" these 3 doing it?

> If someone seriously posts "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" I'm going to associate them with 9/11 truthers.

If you ask for a video that supposedly reveals something about 9/11, and someone posts a video that fulfills your request, you are not then entitled to consider the person who responded to you as "9/11 truther." That would be ridiculous.

> You (or the allegers) are just creating a narrative that's convenient for you/them! And filling in the details. We don't even see them leave the building!

What do you think it would look like for someone to violate the chain of custody of a thumb drive on camera?

> Here's another one: the lady on the left gave the other one her car keys, and the girl and guy were about to sneak off to the carpark to make out. Or, it was a bag of weed, and they're about to go to the back of the building and get high.

None of those require or suggest the behavior seen in the video.

> Did you even confirm how the votes are stored? There are boxes with United States Postal Service in the background. So surely they're counting mail ballots. There are no computers on the desks, so, it doesn't seem the results of the counted mail ballots are being stored digitally.

Actually lots of voting machines read the ballot and record the result onto digital media.

> Do these 3 look like master hackers, or is it so easy to tamper with the digital files that it's plausible anyone (including many in republican areas) could do it

In fact its so easy that up until very recently lots of mainstream orgs (like the NYT!) were sounding the alarm.

> but you've only "caught" these 3 doing it?

Well first people said there was no evidence, now you're saying there must be more evidence or this doesn't count?

> None of those require or suggest the behavior seen in the video.

What! And how can you say the behaviors in the video is inconclusive proof of voter fraud!?! Or at least suggest voter fraud?!

Where's even the thumb drive? You've managed to see things from a few pixels and what commentators are saying what it is. What if I tell you, that's a bag of weed. Can you see a bag of weed? What, no? Can you see a thumbdrive? I can't!

> Actually lots of voting machines read the ballot and record the result onto digital media.

So... this lady, who looks like her job is to sit there and count mail ballots, also has access to the voting machines (which is nowhere to be seen near her in the video), and is allowed to have custody of the results for who knows how long, while she does other work? These assumptions would mean such lax security, that then sure, rampant voter fraud is possible. Next you and the entire fraud-founding Internet commenters will want to see the security procedures of the whole voting operation and that are to your satisfaction. I don't have all the facts and can't deny that maybe they are that mind-numbingly lax (in which case, as a supporter of a US government based on sanity rather than nutjob conspiracy theories, I would be worried that rampant and easy voter fraud benefiting Republicans happened), but don't you think there would have been Republican party officials who have actually reviewed said procedures and who would've said "Hey, why are you letting random people have custody of the digital results?".

> What! And how can you say the behaviors in the video is inconclusive proof of voter fraud!?! Or at least suggest voter fraud?!

Yeah, when votes are stored on digital media, an apparent attempt to surreptitiously remove a thumb drive from a place where votes are counted suggests an attempt at compromising the election.

> So... this lady, who looks like her job is to sit there and count mail ballots, also has access to the voting machines (which is nowhere to be seen near her in the video), and is allowed to have custody of the results for who knows how long, while she does other work? These assumptions would mean such lax security, that then sure, rampant voter fraud is possible.

Those aren't really necessary assumptions but I'm glad you can see how its evident that its possible to have enough voter fraud to affect results.

> Next you and the entire fraud-founding Internet commenters will want to see the security procedures of the whole voting operation and that are to your satisfaction.

Yes that's what we want, any guesses on whether any of this will be better next time?

> (in which case, as a supporter of a US government based on sanity rather than nutjob conspiracy theories, I would be worried that rampant and easy voter fraud benefiting Republicans happened)

You should probably decouple your vote fraud concerns from your partisan concerns because comments like this suggest that vote fraud is worse when it benefits one party than the other and that's not the case. Vote fraud is bad because it violates the integrity of the election and because it threatens the legitimacy of the government.

> but don't you think there would have been Republican party officials who have actually reviewed said procedures and who would've said "Hey, why are you letting random people have custody of the digital results?".

The point of the sleight of hand is to remove the drive without the chain of custody documents reflecting that fact. A review of the procedure wouldn't show the conduct displayed in the video, that's the point.

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

> 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.

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.

> 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.

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?

> 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.

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

Reply on news.ycombinator.com