Google Is STEALING Elections

@techsouth said
You're trying to get me to chase a red-herring.

Tell me We'll create a "Ministry of Truth" that will decide what is true or not. Whatever they say cannot be challenged. I don't see what can go wrong.

Presumably, the Ministry of Truth gets to decide what counts as evidence and what does not.

What part of that do you not agree with?

We already know what is objectively true in politics but some right wing cowards will not acknowledge the truth of their authoritarian agenda so they thrash about creating one BS grievance after another and demanding that it gets equal footing with known truths.

@kevcvs57 said
We already know what is objectively true in politics but some right wing cowards will not acknowledge the truth of their authoritarian agenda so they thrash about creating one BS grievance after another and demanding that it gets equal footing with known truths.

No you don't. Nobody does. That is what debates are for.
Politics included the new experimental gene vaccines are safe.
They never were safe.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/florida-surgeon-general-calls-for-a-halt-to-the-use-of-mrna-covid-19-vaccines/?utm_source=most_recent&utm_campaign=usa

@metal-brain said
No you don't. Nobody does. That is what debates are for.
Politics included the new experimental gene vaccines are safe.
They never were safe.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/florida-surgeon-general-calls-for-a-halt-to-the-use-of-mrna-covid-19-vaccines/?utm_source=most_recent&utm_campaign=usa

You're easily as big an idiot as he is.

@metal-brain said
No you don't. Nobody does. That is what debates are for.
Politics included the new experimental gene vaccines are safe.
They never were safe.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/florida-surgeon-general-calls-for-a-halt-to-the-use-of-mrna-covid-19-vaccines/?utm_source=most_recent&utm_campaign=usa

Uhuh. Moron.

@metal-brain said
The answer is in the video. Do you expect me to repeat what Epstein explained in detail? I cannot explain it better than he did. Why are you avoiding the answer?

He didn't explain.

@wildgrass said
He didn't explain.

Liar

@vivify said
Red-herring? You mean the endless examples of misinformation right-wingers push that gets them banned from platforms? You know, the very topic we're discussing?

Your "ministry of truth" tripe is a red-herring. You're trying to distract from the many examples of clearly false right-wing misinformation, like the 2020 election. And that it's your own fault for the bans you ...[text shortened]... ng banned for misinformation in this age when when obtaining facts could not possibly be any easier.

I'm working hard to avoid red-herrings.

You keep throwing out unrelated points. I don't comment on most of them because I'm not here to engage in every side argument that comes up. In many cases, but not all, even though I have not commented, I don't agree with your claims. By choosing to engage in one debate, I cannot commit to engaging in every debate.

In regards to "conspiracy theories", you listed about 6 that are so outlandish I hadn't heard of them. I am at a loss to understand how any meaningful conversation can occur when there is an endless stream of bad ideas that OTHER PEOPLE have that keep being thrown in. That is the exact definition of a "red-herring". If you are trying to persuade me that I am the one wrong, you are going about it exactly opposite as to what has a reasonable chance of working.

In regards to "conspiracy theories", it is a simple observation about human nature that malevolent people at times "conspire" together to carry out evil schemes. It is an easily observable fact of history that things are not always what they seem on the surface. Democrats believe in "conspiracy theories", as long as it is Republicans that are the ones they think are conspiring.

The reason I brought up the lab-leak theory of Covid is I thought that would be least controversial. I could argue a few more cases of "official" misinformation, but I don't want to pick ones that lead to side-arguments. I thought that with this example anyone being reasonable would at least concede the point that sometimes "official" sources go too far and in this case censor people that should have been welcomed at the debate table. If you cannot just concede this point, without ridicule nor red-herring, what point would there be for me to bring up other examples?

Since few of us witness most political action first hand, we're all trying to make sense out of conflicting or dubious claims. The best one can do is not be too quick to latch on to the latest accusation and be aware of their own cognitive blind spots. In the end, some sources seem to have more credibility than others.

I agree that we should not be so quick to latch onto conspiracy theories. It has been pointed out that to reflexively believe that whatever the government is saying is false is no more nuanced than to automatically assume everything is true. They are just two sides of the same coin.

In my world, claims fall into three groups:

1. A premise is almost definitely true.
2. A premise is almost definitely false.
3. A premise could reasonable be true or false.

I see that you are a lot more black and white and don't seem to recognize #3. There is not a lot of nuance to your thinking. Whatever the official story is, you believe it, and to even engage in a conversation that begins the process of questioning something you haven't already proved false is not only not useful, but harmful.

I should point out that other people may know things that I don't and vice versa. There may be something that Biden claims to know for certain, but I consider it as something that may be false due to the fact that I know sometimes politicians lie. Also, there may be an incredible claim in a "study" that I haven't personally investigated, but I am unconvinced of the conclusion because I know that roughly half of all supposed "studies" cannot be replicated and sometimes studies are not done well.

Back to the main point of the thread. Is google stealing elections? I can't prove it and although the video I posted makes that argument, I have to say that for me this is still more of a premise that falls into group #3, but is worth talking about and looking into more carefully due to the power that Google has and the plausibility of the claim. The fact that I don't currently have proof is not that remarkable because virtually know one gets to access all of Google's raw data and subpoena their employees.

If that's not the type of conversation that interests you, I understand. You're more comfortable in case 1 and case 2. But I stand by my perspective that this falls under case 3 for me and if all you have to offer in rebuttal is ridicule and red-herrings, I hope you're having fun with that, but can also understand why your credibility is diminished.

@kevcvs57 said
We already know what is objectively true in politics but some right wing cowards will not acknowledge the truth of their authoritarian agenda so they thrash about creating one BS grievance after another and demanding that it gets equal footing with known truths.

We already know what is objectively true in politics

It's like you live on a different planet.

I will concede that in a lot of cases people could know what they don't know or claim to not know. But in no world inhabited by humans will it be possible to always know what is objectively true in politics.

@techsouth said
In my world, claims fall into three groups:

1. A premise is almost definitely true.
2. A premise is almost definitely false.
3. A premise could reasonable be true or false.

I see that you are a lot more black and white and don't seem to recognize #3. There is not a lot of nuance to your thinking. Whatever the official story is, you believe it, and to even engage i ...[text shortened]... ocess of questioning something you haven't already proved false is not only not useful, but harmful.

Misinformation usually falls into premise #1 or 2. That's why most misinformation can be judged objectively.

Most instances of misinformation bans are not for premise #3.

@vivify said
Misinformation most often falls into premise #1 and 2. That's why most misinformation can be judged objectively.

Most instances of misinformation bans are not for premise #3.

I'm going to surprise you.

I don't disagree with anything you've said here.

@metal-brain said
Liar

Huh? He did not explain this. He just asserted it.

@techsouth said
I'm working hard to avoid red-herrings.

You keep throwing out unrelated points. I don't comment on most of them because I'm not here to engage in every side argument that comes up. In many cases, but not all, even though I have not commented, I don't agree with your claims. By choosing to engage in one debate, I cannot commit to engaging in every debate.

In regard ...[text shortened]... ngs, I hope you're having fun with that, but can also understand why your credibility is diminished.

Regarding the issue of Google and your expertise in this area, How did he calculate the number of people who switched their vote because of Google?

@wildgrass said
Huh? He did not explain this. He just asserted it.

No. he explained it.
You didn't watch it, did you?

@metal-brain said
No. he explained it.
You didn't watch it, did you?

I'm one of the few who did. You can't tell me how he calculated the number of votes google induced to change?

@wildgrass said
I'm one of the few who did. You can't tell me how he calculated the number of votes google induced to change?

Dude, why are you giving the CIA and NSA the benefit of the doubt?
Know who you are defending and making excuses for.

https://qz.com/1145669/googles-true-origin-partly-lies-in-cia-and-nsa-research-grants-for-mass-surveillance