Impassionata

I can understand why you think the way you do and the way you construct your arguments, unlike some others in this thread, makes me believe you're genuine.

But I hope you can see that there are a large number of people who see a physical assault on the peaceful transition of power as a threat to the continuance of our government. An existential threat.

We are never going to change our minds on this and you have no right to ask us to overlook it because that's sort of like asking us to ignore an arsonist who we know set a fire, who has proclaimed the desire to set fires.

Violence was used to disrupt the peaceful transition of power. Violence was used to disrupt the peaceful transition of power. Violence was used to disrupt the peaceful transition of power.

How can you possibly ask people to look past this? With a straight face?

You're one of those people, I suspect, who gets tripped up on literal definitions of things. It doesn't matter what, specifically, is an attempted coup and what isn't. People will use imprecise terminology and if you want to talk politics you may just have to grow up about that fact.

Violence was used to disrupt the peaceful transition of power.

Once you only care about silencing those who would point out fascism, it becomes easy enough. Watchful moderation willing to act is necessary.

I'm unsurprised that HN is being exploited this way, but I am pleasantly surprised that there are people seeing them in operation like yourself and the others speaking up.

The truth gets buried, ultimately, not by these bad-faith arguments, but by the giant thread above consisting of those who prefer to live in the world of the 90s where Republicans and Democrats worked to further their specific interests collectively in an organized fashion, and listening to both sides made sense.

I don't know if the memo is going to get out: those Republicans are gone. Those days are gone. Once the party has turned fascist I don't think there's going back, it's not like they can turn away from their deceived or delusional voters.

HN isn't a politics forum, its only function is to provide value for YCombinator. It can't address these foundational failures in human thinking.

But it's informative to see it struggle and fail.

These people here in this topic are the vectors for misinformation.

Might get far enough: this entire thread is flagged.

... nah.

It's not that it's hard to read his texts, and sometimes there's still some good stuff in there. It's that once someone shows bad judgment you have to think about how that manifests, and that manifests in poor thinking that's well-disguised.

Once you know a clock is broken don't use it to tell the time.

There's a way to achieve the stated goals: have the government come down real hard both on the low-level data crime and the big players that are supposedly legit.

Burn it all down.

It has always been like this. Everyone always repeated talking points they heard in the mainstream media. Always.

Pathologizing hobbies, even as a joke, doesn't really make for a great start.

This is a stupid trap you're trying. See how they misdirect? I'm not saying d0mine is taking Russian money, I'm saying that the Russian money spent getting hooks into Trump leads inexorably to a bunch of chumps like d0mine trying to murk up the water in a shabby pretense of discourse.

See here's this guy proving me right. These nitpickers are extremely easy to fool into doing the work of propaganda.

Half of the country thinks the Mueller report exonerated Trump. The body politic has become completely decoupled from reality.

If it's that easy for Russians to influence our politics, why wouldn't the Chinese perceive that there is low-hanging fruit in running general disruption?

If you constrain 'performance' to things which can be easily measured and then test how multitasking affects those measurements, you can come to some broad conclusions that are also useless.

Hello there! It's nice to be remembered. How, may I ask, are you familiar with my work?

This privileges confident speakers. (The same way written tests privilege confident readers, and standardized written tests privilege those who have the time and resources to study the standard.)

Those people are capable of speaking for themselves and don't need your advocacy. Rethink your approach, muddling equivocator.

There is no good strategy to convince the unscientific. Your project of seeking a good strategy is deluded nattering which adds nothing.

Your strategy, in other words, is bad.

To reiterate: Referencing the bad arguments of other people is stupid. Don't do it.

Racists aren't going to be convinced that Black Lives Matter but if I spend my time pointing that out in every topic about a cop killing a human being I'm doing something wrong.

No, mostly because you come into topics about serious issues and opine inanely about how science is a religion.

You talk past the topic. You get called out on it. You double down. You loftily say that we're talking past each other, when you're the one who tries to insist we follow you on a journey to how science is a religion.

Naturally your experience must be that people are talking past you. Because you don't know how to engage in the conversation, you just know how to divert.

If you insist on talking past the topic then pointing out that we're talking past each other is your first step to, maybe, perhaps, noticing that your approach to this conversation is the problem.

I bet it happens to you a lot.

You aren't being instructed to believe something based on faith. You're encountering evidence you disagree with and making up, which is to say hallucinating, the idea that the evidence of science is something that is like faith.

It is nothing like faith.

Don't make your problem with the available evidence a question of faith or you discredit faith.

Like I said, don't bring faith into politics.

If you believe that people who believe climate change is an emergency are taking part in a faith-based movement that is a huge logical error on your part.

Faith is a personal choice. Examining evidence and coming to a conclusion about what is real is a matter of logic and reasoning. They are completely different, and mixing them is not just poor form, it exposes your motivated reasoning.

That wasn't an examination of voting population dynamics, that was just lazy opinionating with a flimsy curtain over the motivated reasoning.

God will not stop us from destroying ourselves. I wouldn't bring faith into a political discussion.

Referencing the fictional arguments of 'a lot of people' just means you're too ashamed to own your own opinion.

You want to call other people crazy for using precise, accurate terms, I think that makes you crazy.

This is what people were saying as the climate emergency set in. Incredible.

I wrote a letter. https://theimpassionata.wordpress.com/2020/06/23/to-whom-it-...