Progressives didn’t win a clean sweep, but they emerged with an impressive scorecard, carrying seats in battlegrounds like Michigan and safely red states.
I see very little to disagree with, factually, in this message.
You sound like because I took issue with the “bullet ballots” thing, you’re trying to engineer some disagreement with me, backing the goalposts up and then pretending I guess that I would disagree with this new stance. But yes, this mostly makes sense.
“you’re trying to engineer some disagreement with me”
nope.
I disagree with your inaccuracy and tangential rabbit hole diving.
you’re criticizing one instance of limited speculation with your own limited speculation, and ignoring the majority of other scientists who are only using unassailable facts, that is “the crux of the matter”.
you’re sticking with this one detail of this one guy so that you don’t have to come to terms with the facts.
I’m not engineering anything, you’re upset that I’m not allowing you to fabricate an inaccurate narrative.
don’t pretend you’re not the one holding those goalposts.
Unless you actually believe that you’re not…in which case, take a deep breath, read your comments through again, and try to pare down what you’re saying to the things that actually make a difference instead of just argumentative quibbling.
you agree with everything I’m saying, you don’t like how I’m saying it because I’m not being polite to your less consequential narratives.
well, I’m not going to be polite because you started making things up or changing the topic either so, don’t go that route.
I really just don’t want to sit and argue with you.
To clarify, I strongly disagree with your linked source, and your initial message where you said the election “was likely hacked.” I looked at the data which your own source led off with, and built its whole argument off. “The key data raising concerns that a hack may have been deployed is the number of bullet ballots which exist for Trump in swing states,” they said. So I looked into those bullet ballot claims, and found that they’re contradicted by publicly available information.
You can call that rabbit-hole diving or tangential if you want. I call it critical thinking.
I mostly agree with your more recent messages, where all you are saying is that the Republicans are dishonest enough that we should be doing recounts and making sure that nothing happened. That part makes perfect sense to me. I have no disagreement with any of the computer scientists who signed the “free speech for the people” letter.
I’ve clarified what I think, probably at too much length at this point. I’m not interested in an extended argument about it or in responding to personal attacks. Have a good day.
This is exactly what I said. The claimed evidence doesn’t match the publicly available figures, and the rest is wild speculation with no particular backing. Almost as if “using your own critique” and testing extraordinary claims against known facts before absorbing them, is a good thing to do.
I’m going to return to not arguing with you, after this, but I just wanted to share that a trusted authority agrees with me exactly about how to treat the claims made your first couple of messages.
I see very little to disagree with, factually, in this message.
You sound like because I took issue with the “bullet ballots” thing, you’re trying to engineer some disagreement with me, backing the goalposts up and then pretending I guess that I would disagree with this new stance. But yes, this mostly makes sense.
“you’re trying to engineer some disagreement with me”
nope.
I disagree with your inaccuracy and tangential rabbit hole diving.
you’re criticizing one instance of limited speculation with your own limited speculation, and ignoring the majority of other scientists who are only using unassailable facts, that is “the crux of the matter”.
you’re sticking with this one detail of this one guy so that you don’t have to come to terms with the facts.
I’m not engineering anything, you’re upset that I’m not allowing you to fabricate an inaccurate narrative.
don’t pretend you’re not the one holding those goalposts.
Unless you actually believe that you’re not…in which case, take a deep breath, read your comments through again, and try to pare down what you’re saying to the things that actually make a difference instead of just argumentative quibbling.
you agree with everything I’m saying, you don’t like how I’m saying it because I’m not being polite to your less consequential narratives.
well, I’m not going to be polite because you started making things up or changing the topic either so, don’t go that route.
I really just don’t want to sit and argue with you.
To clarify, I strongly disagree with your linked source, and your initial message where you said the election “was likely hacked.” I looked at the data which your own source led off with, and built its whole argument off. “The key data raising concerns that a hack may have been deployed is the number of bullet ballots which exist for Trump in swing states,” they said. So I looked into those bullet ballot claims, and found that they’re contradicted by publicly available information.
You can call that rabbit-hole diving or tangential if you want. I call it critical thinking.
I mostly agree with your more recent messages, where all you are saying is that the Republicans are dishonest enough that we should be doing recounts and making sure that nothing happened. That part makes perfect sense to me. I have no disagreement with any of the computer scientists who signed the “free speech for the people” letter.
I’ve clarified what I think, probably at too much length at this point. I’m not interested in an extended argument about it or in responding to personal attacks. Have a good day.
“I really just don’t want to sit and argue with you.”
… so you proceed to write a treatise?
“You can call that rabbit-hole diving or tangential if you want. I call it critical thinking.”
that should make you feel better, and accurate though and maybe.
We have nine computer scientists talking about facts.
One of which goes one step further.
you think that maybe he is wrong.
based on you thinking that maybe he is wrong.
fine. maybe he is.
doesn’t change anything about the other eight scientists linked or any of the relevant facts.
“probably at too much length at this point.”
definitely, with some unnecessary redundancy.
"I’m not interested in an extended argument "
yeah, I can tell by all your rehashed arguments that you’re not interested in arguing.
thanks for those.
https://lemmy.world/post/22317681
This is exactly what I said. The claimed evidence doesn’t match the publicly available figures, and the rest is wild speculation with no particular backing. Almost as if “using your own critique” and testing extraordinary claims against known facts before absorbing them, is a good thing to do.
I’m going to return to not arguing with you, after this, but I just wanted to share that a trusted authority agrees with me exactly about how to treat the claims made your first couple of messages.
dude, you’re not arguing with me, you’re agreeing with me.
but I’m glad for it.