This shouldn't need to be said at this point, but given the new Speaker's apparent beliefs, it bears repeating:
While there are weaknesses in US election infrastructure, there is simply no evidence whatsoever that the 2020 presidential election was "stolen" or that technical attacks in any way altered its outcome.
58 of my colleagues and I wrote this shortly after these nonsensical conspiracy theories began to spread two years ago. It remains as true now as it was then. https://www.mattblaze.org/papers/election2020.pdf
@mattblaze it's a mistake, both factual and rhetorical, to say there is no evidence instead of saying the evidence is scant and uncompelling.
It's like, yes, there is evidence that the world is flat. It's poor evidence and the overwhelming body of evidence and analysis debunks it. But it exists.
If one wants to engage with someone who has questions about the election, they're going to be immediately shut out once they deny that the evidence exists.
At that point they're clearly gaslighting and won't make any progress.
Although, if the goal is just to preach to the choir or signal tribalism, have at it.
@volkris you’re not as clever ad you think you sound. This isn’t a freshman philosophy class.
@mattblaze who said anything about philosophy?
This is really about rhetoric and political science. This is 100% about real world choice of words.
Philosophy doesn't enter into it.
The moment a person feels gaslit they're going to shut down and your argument is not going to be convincing.
Again, maybe your goal is not to convince. That's fair. The choir will still eat it up.
But if you do want to reach some people with misguided beliefs, then you have to reach them where they are.
@volkris made up bullshit isn’t evidence.
@mattblaze that might be, but AGAIN, if you want to convince someone then you have to meet them where they are.
If I'm a fervent believer that the earth is round and your first words to me are, "Seeing as the world is flat..." I'm going to start with the assumption that you don't know what you're talking about, and you're unlikely to convince me of your perspective.
Maybe a person does believe a bunch of made up bullshit about the election. Fine. If you want to reach them you have to engage with that.
Again, IF your goal goes beyond preaching to the choir.
@volkris I’m not going to meet you halfway on bullshit. Facts and evidence actually matter. If someone says the COVID vaccine is full of 5G tracking microchips, it’s not helpful to say, “ok, but there are probably really only a few 5G microchips in there.”
@mattblaze so again, What's your goal here?
Do you want to educate, influence, and maybe even bring others over to your perspective?
Or is your goal just to shout into the wind?
Or something else?
@volkris no, the more interesting question is what your goal is. I can only conclude that it’s to waste my time. And I’m done with you now.
@mattblaze I'm not very interesting, believe me.
I don't know why you're being so cagey about your motivations here, especially as mentioning what you're aiming for probably helps magnify whatever impact you're looking for.
@quinn Why not both?
My ego can stand being so embarrassed. But yes he is being cagey.
What are you getting at with this post? shouldn't be a controversial or difficult question.
so, and i'm not at all being sarcastic or anything, one thing to understand is that matt not only has a popular presence on social media, his accounts are always high engagement.
i have myself gone through periods of high vs low engagement, and it requires a lot of management. when someone comes to you with a question you've already answered, in some cases (this one particularly) many times, you're not likely to get a lot. it's the first time for you, high nth time for them.
@quinn so do you know what his motivation is? Is this something he has clarified before?
@volkris @mattblaze for what it's worth, he's not being cagey, you're being embarrassing.