They warned you: Someone allegedly used a politician’s cloned voice to interfere with an election | It will most assuredly not be the last time this happens::undefined
I keep saying: none of this will end until we get a clean, cryptographically secure, government-backed way to ID who is sending us something, and it becomes an expectation to use it all the time for anything important. Which is why I have conspiracy theories about the conspiracy theories about government ID.
a clean, cryptographically secure, government=backed way to ID who is sending us something, and it becomes an expectation to use it all the time
sounds dystopian.
sounds dystopian.
So does the total death of objective fact.
An end to internet anonymity isn’t great, but given the alternative I’ll take it.
Truth was always subjective. Technology is just forcing us to face that reality.
Truth is never subjective. Truth is Truth. People have different opinions on where the truth lies but there’s is an objective reality to anything.
I see you have never taken a Philosophy 101 course. “Truth” is a lot more complicated than you think.
And I see you didn’t understand your philosophy 101 course.
All the ideas we have about this stuff comes from a pre-science era and nothing we discovered backs up what they argued.
That is why Plato can make up another dimension and a psychic connection, that is why Hume could pretend to not know what cause and effect was, that is why Desecrates could think that if he has an idea it has to be true…
Something to consider for a moment. If you are really determined to maintain the stance that truth is subject that would mean this stance is subjective. Hence there must be exceptions, but your stance allows none. Any statement of the effect that statements are never fully true is going to produce contradictions.
Desecrates could think that if he has an idea it has to be true
That’s not what Descartes said, by the way.
“I think therefore I am” was all about “I know I must exist, because I’m here to think about it”. It wasn’t about “if I think something it must be true”.
In Discourse he sets about trying to establish what things you can know for sure, vs which things are subjective (and could just be a trick of the mind or an illusion). He establishes the first principle that the one thing he knows is definitely true is that he is an entity that is capable of thought (because otherwise, who else is doing all this thinking?) and therefore at the very least he must exist, even if nothing else does.
If you’re of the position that truth isn’t subjective, “Cartesian doubt” should be right up your alley. Trust nothing until you can prove it! Not a bad position for a philosopher to take.
“Interfere” with a primary election…
The DNC is very open about how primaries aren’t real elections and they don’t have to follow results.
And they already took all of NH delegates away because the Republicans who control the state house, Senate, and governorship wouldn’t change the state law that says NH is the first primary…
So yes, the deep fake is concerning for democracy.
But not as much as the DNC taking the delegates away from an entire state because Republicans wouldn’t listen to the DNC.
Especially since party favorite moderates have came in last in the last two NH primaries and the most progressive candidates came in first.
Imagine if Trump and the RNC did this in a state that routinely votes for a more progressive candidate in their primary…
We’d all (rightfully) be talking about the end of American democracy.
But when the DNC does it, it’s frightening how many moderates defend it because it’s good for moderates.
Yeah dude, it’s not the actual fascists that are going to cause the end of our democracy. Let’s keep blaming Democrats for shit that the GOP is doing.
When your options are:
-
Full blown fascism
-
Occasionally fascism and not fighting the other sides fascism
A lot more than the 1/3 that don’t normally vote are likely going to not vote in the current election
That is a reality.
And the reality is if there’s depressed turnout, Republicans win.
Pointing it out that it’s likely to happen won’t make it happen.
Getting mad at someone for pointing it out is the same as burning a medicine woman as a witch because she said someone was going to die of their illness and then they died.
Or blaming a meteorologist for the snow storm they predicted.
It doesn’t make any rational sense. And you should be happy someone is trying to warn you, instead of getting mad and telling them if they don’t mention the issues, they’ll go away.
Get mad at the reason for it. In this case, Bidens actions.
If you have a better plan for getting Biden to stop doing all this stupid shit that hurts his chances and help trump besides complaining about it…
Well, I’m all ears.
Because as bad as Biden is, trump is far more dangerous
-
Not to minimize the 2016 or 2020 elections, which a lot of sources say there was not a level playing field in the DNC, but this year there is an incumbent president. This is how incumbent presidents are always treated. It’s normal and fair and strategically sound.
The same thing happened when Donald Trump was incumbent and nobody made a fuss.
Edit for clarity:
normal - The incumbent candidate has preferential treatment within the party in every election cycle. There are various ways that this manifests, and is usually different depending on the exact circumstances. If one chose, they could drill down into specific details to make it seem exceptional e.g. “It’s never been done in with this specific mechanism or in this particular state.”
fair - If you want access to preferential treatment, become President. The President is the figurehead not only of the country, but arguably even more so of their party. It would be unfair for the party leadership to undermine them while in office.
strategically sound - Incumbent candidates win elections. There is something like a 65% advantage to incumbency. Moreover, a party has limited political, social, and financial capital. If they spend that capital in the primary race, then they start the general election at a disadvantage. There is evidence (and common wisdom) that a primary race actually generates more capital, but I’ve never heard any credible suggestion that it could be a net gain in any area. Running a primary means a less unified party, less financial resources, less voter confidence in the victor.
This is how incumbent presidents are always treated. It’s normal and fair and strategically sound.
Really?
I never heard of any party stripping a state of their primary delegates because of something completely out of control of the state party… Especially when it’s a state that routinely votes against the party favorite.
Can you let me know some other times this happened?
In every election, the incumbent is given preferential treatment and generally treated as the de facto candidate. In which election are you thinking of that this was not the case?
Sure…
But when has the national party taken a state’s delegates away?
Ideally for something outside of the states party control, because that’s what just happened. And for a state that routinely votes against the national party’s chosen candidate.
But I’ll take any recent examples of a state losing their primary delegates because the national party yanked them away.
Welp, I guess I was right and this is totally unprecedented in modern American politics…
Still don’t understand why so many people are ok with this tho
