Conspiracy Theories redux

[dneal]

I saw an Atlantic article I'll get to in a moment, but the accusations each side hurls at each other is well described in this Politico article (https://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/2016-election-conspiracy-theory-rigged-228807) from September, 2016.


The most dangerous conspiracy theory of 2016
Trump and Clinton feed the rigged-election charge to their peril.

...Of course, conspiracy theories and wild rumors have long had a home in American presidential politics, from unsubstantiated claims advanced by Thomas Jefferson’s supporters that John Adams was plotting to attack France to Harry Reid’s inaccurate statement on the Senate floor in 2012 that Mitt Romney had been dodging tax payments for more than a decade...

The Politico piece does a decent job of describing both campaigns insinuation of corruption. If Hillary loses, it's Russian Conspiracy. If Trump loses, it's "a sham election".

As noted, none of this is new. The level of vehemence is, and it's detrimental to our society. Each side offers their boogey-man, and calls the other side crazy "conspiracy theorists". Examples of each are plentiful, as is the hyperbole on why one side's conspiracy is truth, and the other is a lie.

So yesterday this piece from The Atlantic (https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2022/01/january-6-insurrection-trump-coup-2024-election/620843/) caught my attention.


TRUMP’S NEXT COUP HAS ALREADY BEGUN
January 6 was practice. Donald Trump’s GOP is much better positioned to subvert the next election.

Technically, the next attempt to overthrow a national election may not qualify as a coup. It will rely on subversion more than violence, although each will have its place. If the plot succeeds, the ballots cast by American voters will not decide the presidency in 2024. Thousands of votes will be thrown away, or millions, to produce the required effect. The winner will be declared the loser. The loser will be certified president-elect.

Donald Trump hasn't even declared whether or not he will run in 2024, but the political battlefield is already being prepared with narratives.

This article specifically creates doubt on the electoral process, the same thing the right does/did. The article is already asserting that the GOP is going to cheat, and if they win it is illegitimate. This is the same 2020 Trump narrative, from the left.

Does anyone else find this disconcerting?

[Bold2013]

After the coming red wave in 2022 I don’t think people will be surprised by who gets elected in 2024

[dneal]

I think many (maybe even most) of his policies were beneficial to the country, but I hope he-who-must-not-be-named doesn't run in 2024 - for the good of the country.

But that's not the point of the thread.

To be more clear, does anyone find it disconcerting that The Atlantic, a major publication, would print a piece like that? What purpose does it serve other than to inflame and/or galvanize? "Click-bait" of a sort, for revenue?

There's no historical shortage of "yellow journalism". "If it bleeds, it leads". "Plane-crash reporting", or whatever descriptor one wants to use. The Spanish-American War was started because of it. You would think "journalists" (left and right) would be aware of the dangers of inciting mob-mentality, demonstrated by Antifa, BLM, and the "patriots" rioting at the Capitol on 6 January; to name a few.

[Chuck Naill]

After the coming red wave in 2022 I don’t think people will be surprised by who gets elected in 2024

"Hope for the best, expect the worse" Mel Brooks

[dneal]

And The Atlantic is still at it. Their newsletter (https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2021/12/donald-trump-2024-election-coup/620922/)references the article above, and expounds on it.


Former President Donald Trump’s antidemocratic campaign to overturn the 2020 election failed. Next time—and there will be a next time—American democracy might not be so lucky, our staff writer Barton Gellman argues in our latest cover story.

This isn’t the first time Bart has predicted such an attack on the democratic system: Six weeks before the last presidential election, he accurately anticipated, in detail, that then-President Trump would try to undermine the results. Now he reports that Trump and his allies are better prepared to do so in 2024. Here’s why.

They have the numbers.

The Big Lie has radicalized tens of millions of Americans—some to the point of violence. The former president “has built the first American mass political movement in the past century that is ready to fight by any means necessary, including bloodshed, for its cause,” Bart writes.

“This really is a new, politically violent mass movement,” Robert A. Pape, who studies such violence—including the January 6 attack—told Bart. Pape compared this period in America to the late 1960s in Northern Ireland, at the beginning of the Troubles.

And, this time, they may have the means.

“Republican acolytes have identified the weak points in our electoral apparatus and are methodically exploiting them,” Bart reports. They’ve rewritten election statutes to wrestle partisan control over ballot counts. They’ve aimed to fill key positions with more sympathetic allies. And they are organizing around a doctrine that could give states a legal basis to throw out votes and may prove appealing to the conservative-leaning Supreme Court.

This is irresponsible rhetoric, sowing the seeds of conspiracy, not in some dark corner of the internet but in a major publication.

[Chip]

I'm curious. The Atlantic is "sowing the seeds of conspiracy" yet somehow Trump and his heavily-armed lunatic devotees are blameless?

This miserable creature (with family and murder weapons) represents Kentucky in the US House.

https://i.imgur.com/aufTUdR.jpg

[dneal]

Chip, many folks here complain about that type of response as "whataboutism".

I concede that hyperbole exists on the right as well. Do you think the two articles in The Atlantic represent responsible journalism?

[Chip]

Not only responsible, but timely.

There's not much doubt that the Republican party, having lost the presidency, is doing everything in its power to suppress votes, gerrymander voting districts, and in sum, to steal elections they are unable to win by fair means. Trump, the de facto leader of the party, attempted to subvert the last election and incited a riot with fatal consequences.

Or did you miss that?

[dneal]

Did I miss what? Your and The Atlantic's assertions? Not at all. I even started this thread on it.

Are Republicans the only party that gerrymanders? and how exactly do they suppress votes? Sounds a little "conspiracy theorist-ish".

[Chip]

If you don't know the answers to your bad-faith questions, I'm not going to waste time bringing you up to speed.

[Chuck Naill]

I'm curious. The Atlantic is "sowing the seeds of conspiracy" yet somehow Trump and his heavily-armed lunatic devotees are blameless?

This miserable creature (with family and murder weapons) represents Kentucky in the US House.

https://i.imgur.com/aufTUdR.jpg

Wow. What's their point?

[Chuck Naill]

Not only responsible, but timely.

There's not much doubt that the Republican party, having lost the presidency, is doing everything in its power to suppress votes, gerrymander voting districts, and in sum, to steal elections they are unable to win by fair means. Trump, the de facto leader of the party, attempted to subvert the last election and incited a riot with fatal consequences.

Or did you miss that?

I don't think he's missing it, but like everything else, overlooking or rationalizing it if it gives him what he thinks is something good he wants.

[kazoolaw]

If you don't know the answers to your bad-faith questions, I'm not going to waste time bringing you up to speed.

Thank you.

[dneal]

If you don't know the answers to your bad-faith questions, I'm not going to waste time bringing you up to speed.

Was post #6 in good faith?

[dneal]

It's curious how some can so easily see propaganda on one side, but not the other.

There are two echo-chambers. If you only see one, you're in the other.

65601

[Chuck Naill]

Believing either is not necessary. I am certainly not immune, but with a little effort, the truth can be had. So, if you know that over 1000 people are dying per day and the hospitals are full, and some still insist not to get a preventative measure or other more mechainical practices, is there anything about that that's propaganda?

[dneal]

You're confusing recognition with belief. I see both, and believe neither.

Your argument from emotion on "people dying" and "hospitals are full" lacks data. Certainly there are regional highs and lows.

Perhaps try this data set from HHS. (https://protect-public.hhs.gov/datasets/HHSGOV::reported-state-hospital-capacity-and-covid19-patient-impact/explore)

[Chuck Naill]

You're confusing recognition with belief. I see both, and believe neither.

Your argument from emotion on "people dying" and "hospitals are full" lacks data. Certainly there are regional highs and lows.

Perhaps try this data set from HHS. (https://protect-public.hhs.gov/datasets/HHSGOV::reported-state-hospital-capacity-and-covid19-patient-impact/explore)

Don't start out suggesting I am confused. You're either stupid or a troll if you do.

Nope, I've posted actual numbers of death and dying plus hospitals. You don't need me to educate. The data is readily available.

Be nice to me, I am the only one that does not have you on their ignore list.

[dneal]

I remarked about a side being able to "see", not to believe. To point out that your use of the word "belief", and confusing it with what I said; is not saying you are "confused" in the general term. You're either stupid or a troll if you conflate (is that better?) those ideas.

You make many claims about numbers of deaths and dying plus hospitals. Those are assertions. Feel free to substantiate them, or not. I merely offered you a credible source. The burden of proof does not lie on me.

I will respond to you in kind. I couldn't care less if you put me on your "ignore" list. If it prevents you from derailing threads, it might be a benefit to us both; but me in particular.

Here's a 15 minute YouTube video related to the topic. Some people (particularly liberals) being unable to see anything other than what is present in their echo chamber.

Since it's Van Jones, an African American; if you do not watch or do not agree, you're a racist. That's the way it works, right?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=zFfWv0EnHQw

[Chuck Naill]

The only reason I say anything is because you're always a cry baby about my posts.

Death and dying are occuring. Perhaps you need to get out of the Fox News Closet more often.

[dneal]

Chuck, it seems curious that you resort to unfounded accusations and personal attack when presented with things that discount your assertions.

"Fox News Closet"? I scan Fox and Newsmax for the current narrative in the red echo-chamber, just like I scan the NYT and CNN for the blue echo-chamber's narrative.

You only see one. Anything that doesn't comport must be "Fox News Closet", which again explains how you irrationally asserted a Slovenian was a "Trumpist".

Yes, death and dying are occurring. I pointed that out some months ago. You only seem concerned when it's from Covid. Do you not care about the people of various shades dying as a result of "lockdowns"?

My post from the Jay Bhattacharya discussion (https://fpgeeks.com/forum/showthread.php/35675-What-Happened-Dr-Jay-Bhattacharya-on-19-Months-of-COVID?p=342398&viewfull=1#post342398). You do frequently seem to not want to hear what brown people say unless it's a white elite telling you about them. Curious.


Dr. Bhattacharya is cited from a presentation he gave last year:

"In the last 20 years we've lifted one billion people worldwide out of poverty. This year we are reversing that progress and an estimated 130 million people will starve. Another result of the lockdowns is that people stopped bringing their children in for immunizations against diseases like diphtheria, whooping cough, and polio. Eighty million children worldwide are now at risk of these diseases."

He continues: 100 million people have been thrown into poverty. Tens of millions of people have been thrown into starvation, dire food insecurity as a consequence of the lockdowns worldwide, especially in Africa.

Peter Robinson: So meaning that when the western world - which is the rich world - contracts its economy, when we shut down our economy, you're ok if you live in Pacific Palisades but if you live somewhere in Africa, when the world economy shrinks; the poor and very poor are exposed and in the rudest way their lives themselves become at risk.

Dr. B.: We spent the last two decades or more developing systems of trade and globalization that effectively were promises to poor countries, that changed their economies to rely on these systems; and overnight we violated those promises so it's not surprising that the greatest harm from lockdowns have happened in poor countries around the world. I'll just give you another statistic about children. It was estimated in March of this past year - the UN put out reports estimating that nearly 250,000 children had died of starvation as a consequence of the economic dislocation from lockdowns in South Asia alone. The harm to children is incalculable from this.

This is not merely conjecture, and links to the WHO and UNICEF are at the bottom of this post. The UNICEF site is particularly diverse and informative.

So my question is essentially the same as the one I asked a year and a half ago: Is “shut everything down” necessarily the only reasonable method of mitigating risk?

We have the benefit of hindsight now. While it may be 20/20 (and it's certainly not in this case), the virus and "lockdown" policies remain. These are true moral dilemmas, and won't go away with glib rhetorical dismissal. People are going to die. How do we minimize that? or maybe how do we not exacerbate it?

UNICEF COVID-19 and Children Data Hub (https://data.unicef.org/covid-19-and-children/)
UN Report: Pandemic year marked by spike in world hunger. (https://www.who.int/news/item/12-07-2021-un-report-pandemic-year-marked-by-spike-in-world-hunger)


So yes Chuck, people are dying. Most of them as a result of western "lockdown" politics.

Did you watch the Van Jones video?

[Chip]

So yes Chuck, people are dying. Most of them as a result of western "lockdown" politics.

Seriously? More than the 5,317,965 people who have died so far from the coronavirus COVID-19 outbreak as of December 12, 2021?

5,317,965 people have died so far from the coronavirus COVID-19 outbreak as of December 12, 2021, 05:21 GMT.

You do realize that many who die of the virus leave children in dire straits? Does that count?

[dneal]

Yes, Chip. Really.

Why weight the importance of corona deaths over other deaths?

Read Dr. B again:
"We spent the last two decades or more developing systems of trade and globalization that effectively were promises to poor countries, that changed their economies to rely on these systems; and overnight we violated those promises so it's not surprising that the greatest harm from lockdowns have happened in poor countries around the world. I'll just give you another statistic about children. It was estimated in March of this past year - the UN put out reports estimating that nearly 250,000 children had died of starvation as a consequence of the economic dislocation from lockdowns in South Asia alone. The harm to children is incalculable from this."

Which is a fat old guy in Wyoming more worried about dying from today? Covid or starvation?

Which is a poor child in a 3rd world country more worried about dying from today? Covid or starvation?

Could your personal circumstances be affecting your perspective? To come round to the actual topic, could the media you consume contribute to those biases?

[Chuck Naill]

It can be media for some. I think if you believe the virus is not that sersous or that the vaccines are not effective on some level, it is not coming from nowhere.

If you are out and about for work and play you'll hear about folks dying, someone's mother, or sister, a co-worker or their family member. You'll hear about vaccines whether some take them or not. You'll hear that someone took the vaccine and got sick and some did and lived. For decades I've heard people say that got an attenuated flu vaccine and got the flu. All this could occur without listening or reading media.

The people with the strongest ant-vaccine rhetoric or that don't consider the virus that serious send me YouTube videos. You can listen and here the anti-science. (It is like the Bannon video you sent that you thought was great and I recognized he still dividing people) One sent me something everyday and it runied our friendship.

None of this comes from my personal circumstances. I am pretty much as common as corn. However, I was taught to read and be critical, to consider the context, and to let the science speak for itself, and seek to be objective in my opinions.

You mention your military career and the continuing influence it has today.

I'd suspect Chip and I care about poor children in 3rd world countries, but, for me, I live here and there is plenty I can do here. Is the old fat man you?

[dneal]

It's curious how you manage to assign motive, Chuck; and categorize anyone that disagrees with you into a common group. I suppose it helps with your dismissal of points that conflict with your narrative. That's the problem with blind-spots, though. You can't see them.

I think the virus is serious. I think the response was wrong, and there was media hype for political gain.

I think vaccines are effective on some level. I also think there is no long-term data on risk. There's a reason the "you may be entitled to compensation" meme is funny. Humor requires a degree of truth. My risk-reward calculus in individual.

There is plenty of craziness on YouTube. There are also credible folks having reasonable discussion. Heather Heying and Bret Weinstein are evolutionary biologists. You throw the baby out with the bathwater, dismissing them and implying they are anti-science. Dr. Jay Bhattacharya's credentials are impeccable, but you dismiss him because you don't like what he is saying.

So no, Chuck. You engage in rhetoric. You argue from emotion. You appear to feel instead of think. You are indeed critical - of everything you do not want to consider - but you don't appear to think critically.

p.s.: If you don't like talking about my military career, you might stop bringing it up.
p.p.s.: No, the old fat man isn't me. I'm neither old nor fat.

Now would you like to address the topic? You regularly exhibit an inability to do that.

Do you find the language used in The Atlantic pieces responsible journalism, free of rhetoric, invective and speculation? Do you find them problematic?

[Chuck Naill]

I think the virus is serious. I think the response was wrong, and there was media hype for political gain.

I think vaccines are effective on some level. I also think there is no long-term data on risk.

There is plenty of craziness on YouTube. There are also credible folks having reasonable discussion.



What would you have liked to have seen the virus handled?

I agree there might be risk associated with the vaccines. I see the risk from the virus to be more obvious.

I would allow some videos are useful, just that those that get posted seem to be biased.

[Chuck Naill]

Do you find the language used in The Atlantic pieces responsible journalism, free of rhetoric, invective and speculation? Do you find them problematic?

The Atlanic article sounds like someone feels democracy is being threatened, but I don't need this media to form an unemotional position because I remember the events leading up to January 6, 2021. I remember the recordings of Trump asking the Georgia people to find enough votes. If you have a sitting offical trying to overturn an election, a rational person would say democracy is being threatened. An emotional response is that Trump didn't provoke a riot, if you read the transcript.

There is a Wizard of Oz mentality that's prevalent in the US and that is, don't trust what you see and hear. Or, how things are is not real. "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain".

[dneal]

Chuck, there are plenty of threads on my thoughts regarding the pandemic, going back to when it started. I'll link them if you like.

I'm confused when you say the videos that get posted seem to be biased. You say you don't watch them, so you shouldn't have any basis for that opinion; or you do watch them and disagree perhaps, and label them as "biased". Certainly a person with an opinion (like Bannon) has biases. That's no reason to not listen to what they have to say, "from the horses' mouth", so to speak. Agree or not, at least you heard it from them rather than from another who describes it as they like (or as benefits their interest).

Particularly in today's partisan environment, it is useful to not trust what you see and hear when it is a description from someone else. It is unfortunately extremely useful to be skeptical of those things you find yourself agreeing with. Even fact-checks and "debunkings" are now suspect. The articles posted are simply examples of hyperbole masquerading as journalism. There's plenty on the right, as I point out in the OP. The ridiculousness of the examples I used were for illustration.

An hour-long interview with an MD, PhD economist and professor of public health policy is not some Q-Anon type propaganda. Two PhD evolutionary biologists discussing actual science is not Trumpian propaganda. A PhD reviewing current data on all sorts of aspects of Covid is not a conspiracy theorist. It is precisely the type of objective information that is absent from the media. It is precisely the type of objective information that is "labeled" by social media. Fauci is not the sole arbiter of science. He is one of many scientists. He has a position that conveys a credible appearance of expertise, but also has done things that undermines that credibility.

There is a very lengthy thread on why Trump supporters couldn't believe he lost. I listed the reasons, cited what they consider evidence; and was labeled a "Trumpist". The cognitive dissonance was not on my end. I am capable of seeing each side, and the strengths and weaknesses of each. The same is the case with all sorts of topics, and I try to share the ones that pass through my bs filter. I'm happy to show you the ones that don't. The Q-Anon stuff on the right, and The Atlantic stuff on the left.

I agree that Jan 6 turned into a riot. I see that the proportion was a small percentage of the crowd. I see that the left continues to label it an "insurrection", and an attempt to "overthrow democracy" and other hyperbole. That's precisely the type of language intended to polarize. Trump's unsuccessful legal challenges were still part of a legal process. Objections to electoral votes were part of a legal process (used against Bush, for example, as well). There's no need to characterize either as an "attempt to overthrow...". It's silly hyperbole indicative of emotion overriding reason.

[Chuck Naill]

I agree that Jan 6 turned into a riot. I see that the proportion was a small percentage of the crowd. I see that the left continues to label it an "insurrection", and an attempt to "overthrow democracy" and other hyperbole. That's precisely the type of language intended to polarize. Trump's unsuccessful legal challenges were still part of a legal process. Objections to electoral votes were part of a legal process (used against Bush, for example, as well). There's no need to characterize either as an "attempt to overthrow...". It's silly hyperbole indicative of emotion overriding reason.

It is not emotion as you suggest. Anyone reading the transcript should be able to rationally decide what took place. If you want to deminish this, okay. Just look at Pence's response.

I agree the legal challenges were at the candidates discretion, but other actions appear to have had a different purpose. Asking Georgia to find enough votes for him to win is not something a rational person can ignore, unless they just want to.

Maybe you don't notice your own type of emotion. To say that you are a critical thinker and we are all emtional may work for you, but it is not true.

[dneal]

What is "it" that "is not emotion as I suggest"?

[Chuck Naill]

I’ve said all that I need to say, @dneal.

[Chip]

If you could state your case without insults, you'd perhaps seem close to being rational.

But you can't choke back your bile and anger.

Weird that you cite Pinker's work, having more cognitive biases than a busload of nuns.

[Chuck Naill]

I find it ironic that a drama king even brings up emotion.

[Chip]

Which is a fat old guy in Wyoming more worried about dying from today? Covid or starvation?

The greatest risk to my life is probably a drunk Republican in a huge pickup crossing the center line.

I was born in Wyoming and live here. But I do get out and about.

https://i.imgur.com/8rIda9h.jpg

Does this lifevest make me look fat?

[TSherbs]

BIG wheel, tho

[Chip]

BIG wheel, tho

'Tis. The black outer wheel is the rudder. The bronze inner wheel is for the trim tabs.

The yacht is an AC 40, the Nippon Challenge, sailed in the America's Cup in 1995. It was sold to a New Zealand company as a charter vessel.

https://i.imgur.com/tddHAgg.jpg

The acceleration, on the slightest puff of wind, was phenomenal. I'd never steered anything so big or so fast.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

I know what you mean, it's exhilarating! Had a chance back in the to crew for a day on one of the boats that competed in the Volvo Ocean Legends Race. I think it was a Volvo Open 70, and the skipper was in that race. An amazing experience, and I recall telling a few people later just how surprised I was by its turn of speed and its responsiveness under the hand. Never forget it, never done anything like it since though may try to get up to Auckland and have a go on a newer boat when the pandemic wanes. Most of my sailing in my youth to late 20s was in Laser 2 dinghies or on Hobie cats. I was never that good at reading the conditions, always over-pressed, and spent a lot of time in the water! Great fun. :)

[Chip]

Those Volvo race boats are like oversized dinghies: wide for stability and shallow draft to lessen the drag.

Hobie Cats can be nuts. Really fast. I saw one hit the shore and do a double flip. Wrecked the boat and the people went to the hospital.

I learned to sail on the Waitemata Harbour, Auckland, and bought a small wood boat (a Hartley 14) to sail on Lyttelton Harbour, near Christchurch, which is a challenge what with strong winds and tidal currents. Friends with cruising yachts invited us on their trips, so I learned to sail larger craft, 10 meters and up, on the Hauraki Gulf and along the NE coast.

Here in Wyoming, I rebuilt a 4.5 meter wood skiff to sail on the local lakes. She's fast and tipsy, the water's cold, and the wind hereabouts is unpredictable. Adds to the fun, I reckon.

https://i.imgur.com/WIaRAko.jpg

[Chuck Naill]

Good looking boats. Thanks for posting.

[Chip]

Right. I'll shut up so we can go back to the usual arguments and insults. :focus: