5 ms·

> Trump supporters used to speak up on this site. Surely they still exist but all I hear is crickets They are here. But their contributions are, let's say, not

> Trump supporters used to speak up on this site. Surely they still exist but all I hear is crickets They are here. But their contributions are, let's say, not motivated by fact-based reasoning. Not surprising: it's very hard to defend what's going on in this country right now. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49545694 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49545694 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49545156 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49545156

wallst07 14d ago
1 is flagged 2 Is a statement with a link. What is wrong with it? https://news.gallup.com/poll/652523/americans-endorse-early-voting-voter-verification.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/652523/americans-endorse-early-... Requiring all voters to provide photo identification at their voting place in order to vote Democrats: 67%
- cogman10 14d ago
  #2 isn't really addressing the argument being made. > The fact that reputable sources were not provided to justify the need for fixes has been reputable source enough. The the question wasn't "what do people prefer" it was "what's the evidence this is a problem." People wanting a thing doesn't necessarily mean the thing is is a problem. But further, what the Trump admin is doing isn't the thing being polled. What's wrong with it is that it's a non-sequitur to the conversation at hand. What's happening is new restrictions on mail in voting. A federal registry of citizens which the post office uses to decide who does and does not get a ballot and who's ballot is allowed to arrive to the elections office. A more responsive link would be one that shows evidence of a large amount of mail in voting fraud or even a poll that shows the majority of people support federal checks and restrictions on mail in voting (though, I'd think that's not a good reply because it isn't actually evidence).
  - wallst07 13d ago
    It's clearly a nuanced topic that requires debate in good-faith, no? So why is it flagged and not debated? If all counter points are flagged, then there is no discourse. The only discourse is all the people who agree with each other.
    - cogman10 13d ago
      It's not good faith to mott and baily, gish-gallop, and non-sequitur. I've not seen a comment yet that is actually responsive to points being raised about why this action by the administration is a bad idea. Instead it's "Well, people want voter ID" and "Well because there's unlimited fraud in mail in voting and early voting". What a lot of the flagged comments are (but I don't speak for all the flagging, I personally avoid downvoting or flagging myself unless something is very egregious) are bad faith. It's not one sided, I've gotten into arguments about Biden/Harris when throwing critiques their way with diehard supporters. But frankly, from what I've observed it's a lot worse when it comes to Trump's actions. When he does something indefensible, like this incomplete citizen registration 2 months before an election, instead of addressing the action he just did, his supporters try and change subjects rather than justify this action. The most charitable reading I have from one of his supporters is that this will stop non-citizens from voting in federal elections. But the issues with this they don't address, like the fact that a citizenship list doesn't currently exist and that the process of creating such a list is completely opaque, are simply never addressed. And even when "Ok, if it's such a problem, where's the evidence?" is asked, the only response is to change subjects. That's not a good faith argument. That's not nuance. That's "I have an unfounded belief and rather than defend it, when questions get uncomfortable I'll rely on bad faith debate tactics to try and win the argument".
- hackyhacky 14d ago
  1 was not yet flagged at the time that I wrote that. Nevertheless, you can reconstruct what was written from the quotes in its responses. > Which "side" has been fighting tooth and nail for unverifiable mail-in ballots > resisting all investigations of voting integrity? Basically, the comment asserted that Democrats are "pushing" for mail-in ballots, despite the fact that many Republican-controlled states (notably Mississippi, which recently defended its mail-in voting law) also allow mail-in voting. The comment cast aspersions on the accuracy of mail-in voting, citing no evidence. The comment was apparently informed solely by partisan bias without any basis in the reality of the situation. In short, it was not a good comment. Did it deserve to be flagged? Probably not. But it was certainly not a thoughtful, well-reasoned defense of the current administration's flagrantly illegal overreach. If this is the kind of comment that you want to see more of on HN, then we'll have to agree to disagree.
  - wallst07 13d ago
    It's a spectrum, so we'll just debate what the votes are for. Do I want to see more of them, probably not. Does it deserved to be flagged, absolutely not.
    - hackyhacky 13d ago
      > Do I want to see more of them, probably not. Does it deserved to be flagged, absolutely not. That's fine, but please don't play the martyr. You're supporting a president who is deporting people for constitutionally protected free speech. I think you'll survive a little flag here on HN.
throwawaypath 14d ago
>But their contributions are, let's say, not motivated by fact-based reasoning. Neither are yours: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49546137 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49546137
- hackyhacky 14d ago
  How does that contradict my point? 10 percent of Americans do not have acceptable ID and would be disenfranchised by Republican voter ID laws. Even free ID doesn't make the operation frictionless, as you still have to provide a birth cert or citizenship doc. Don't tell me I'm "unfactual" while presenting this kind of weak sauce non sequitur.
  - throwawaypath 11d ago
    >How does that contradict my point? Your point was states do not give free IDs. That point is an objectively false point. It directly contradicts your point. > 10 percent of Americans do not have acceptable ID Stop moving goalposts. >Even free ID doesn't make the operation frictionless, as you still have to provide a birth cert or citizenship doc. No one made the claim the operation is frictionless, stop straw manning. >Don't tell me I'm "unfactual" You are unfactual as proved in the thread. >while presenting this kind of weak sauce non sequitur. It's not a non sequitur, it dismantles your false statements.
    - hackyhacky 10d ago
      > Your point was states do not give free IDs. No, it was not. Either you are deeply confused or responding to wrong comment. > Stop moving goalposts. This is not moving goal posts. This is precisely the point. Voter ID laws will disenfranchise legal voters. That's it. That's the point. > No one made the claim the operation is frictionless, Good. Then you acknowledge that legal voters will be disenfranchised?
      - throwawaypath 10d ago
        >No, it was not. Yes, it was. >Either you are deeply confused or responding to wrong comment. Stop projecting about being confused. Everyone can see where you poorly attempted to support your objectively false points. >This is not moving goal posts. This is precisely the point. The point was you thought IDs for voting were not free. That is false. Stop moving the goalposts. >Good. Then you acknowledge that legal voters will be disenfranchised? Non sequitur. Proving you're eligibility to vote is not disenfranchisement.

wallst07 14d ago

1 is flagged 2 Is a statement with a link. What is wrong with it? https://news.gallup.com/poll/652523/americans-endorse-early-voting-voter-verification.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/652523/americans-endorse-early-... Requiring all voters to provide photo identification at their voting place in order to vote Democrats: 67%

cogman10 14d ago
#2 isn't really addressing the argument being made. > The fact that reputable sources were not provided to justify the need for fixes has been reputable source enough. The the question wasn't "what do people prefer" it was "what's the evidence this is a problem." People wanting a thing doesn't necessarily mean the thing is is a problem. But further, what the Trump admin is doing isn't the thing being polled. What's wrong with it is that it's a non-sequitur to the conversation at hand. What's happening is new restrictions on mail in voting. A federal registry of citizens which the post office uses to decide who does and does not get a ballot and who's ballot is allowed to arrive to the elections office. A more responsive link would be one that shows evidence of a large amount of mail in voting fraud or even a poll that shows the majority of people support federal checks and restrictions on mail in voting (though, I'd think that's not a good reply because it isn't actually evidence).
- wallst07 13d ago
  It's clearly a nuanced topic that requires debate in good-faith, no? So why is it flagged and not debated? If all counter points are flagged, then there is no discourse. The only discourse is all the people who agree with each other.
  - cogman10 13d ago
    It's not good faith to mott and baily, gish-gallop, and non-sequitur. I've not seen a comment yet that is actually responsive to points being raised about why this action by the administration is a bad idea. Instead it's "Well, people want voter ID" and "Well because there's unlimited fraud in mail in voting and early voting". What a lot of the flagged comments are (but I don't speak for all the flagging, I personally avoid downvoting or flagging myself unless something is very egregious) are bad faith. It's not one sided, I've gotten into arguments about Biden/Harris when throwing critiques their way with diehard supporters. But frankly, from what I've observed it's a lot worse when it comes to Trump's actions. When he does something indefensible, like this incomplete citizen registration 2 months before an election, instead of addressing the action he just did, his supporters try and change subjects rather than justify this action. The most charitable reading I have from one of his supporters is that this will stop non-citizens from voting in federal elections. But the issues with this they don't address, like the fact that a citizenship list doesn't currently exist and that the process of creating such a list is completely opaque, are simply never addressed. And even when "Ok, if it's such a problem, where's the evidence?" is asked, the only response is to change subjects. That's not a good faith argument. That's not nuance. That's "I have an unfounded belief and rather than defend it, when questions get uncomfortable I'll rely on bad faith debate tactics to try and win the argument".
hackyhacky 14d ago
1 was not yet flagged at the time that I wrote that. Nevertheless, you can reconstruct what was written from the quotes in its responses. > Which "side" has been fighting tooth and nail for unverifiable mail-in ballots > resisting all investigations of voting integrity? Basically, the comment asserted that Democrats are "pushing" for mail-in ballots, despite the fact that many Republican-controlled states (notably Mississippi, which recently defended its mail-in voting law) also allow mail-in voting. The comment cast aspersions on the accuracy of mail-in voting, citing no evidence. The comment was apparently informed solely by partisan bias without any basis in the reality of the situation. In short, it was not a good comment. Did it deserve to be flagged? Probably not. But it was certainly not a thoughtful, well-reasoned defense of the current administration's flagrantly illegal overreach. If this is the kind of comment that you want to see more of on HN, then we'll have to agree to disagree.
- wallst07 13d ago
  It's a spectrum, so we'll just debate what the votes are for. Do I want to see more of them, probably not. Does it deserved to be flagged, absolutely not.
  - hackyhacky 13d ago
    > Do I want to see more of them, probably not. Does it deserved to be flagged, absolutely not. That's fine, but please don't play the martyr. You're supporting a president who is deporting people for constitutionally protected free speech. I think you'll survive a little flag here on HN.

throwawaypath 14d ago

>But their contributions are, let's say, not motivated by fact-based reasoning. Neither are yours: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49546137 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49546137

hackyhacky 14d ago
How does that contradict my point? 10 percent of Americans do not have acceptable ID and would be disenfranchised by Republican voter ID laws. Even free ID doesn't make the operation frictionless, as you still have to provide a birth cert or citizenship doc. Don't tell me I'm "unfactual" while presenting this kind of weak sauce non sequitur.
- throwawaypath 11d ago
  >How does that contradict my point? Your point was states do not give free IDs. That point is an objectively false point. It directly contradicts your point. > 10 percent of Americans do not have acceptable ID Stop moving goalposts. >Even free ID doesn't make the operation frictionless, as you still have to provide a birth cert or citizenship doc. No one made the claim the operation is frictionless, stop straw manning. >Don't tell me I'm "unfactual" You are unfactual as proved in the thread. >while presenting this kind of weak sauce non sequitur. It's not a non sequitur, it dismantles your false statements.
  - hackyhacky 10d ago
    > Your point was states do not give free IDs. No, it was not. Either you are deeply confused or responding to wrong comment. > Stop moving goalposts. This is not moving goal posts. This is precisely the point. Voter ID laws will disenfranchise legal voters. That's it. That's the point. > No one made the claim the operation is frictionless, Good. Then you acknowledge that legal voters will be disenfranchised?
    - throwawaypath 10d ago
      >No, it was not. Yes, it was. >Either you are deeply confused or responding to wrong comment. Stop projecting about being confused. Everyone can see where you poorly attempted to support your objectively false points. >This is not moving goal posts. This is precisely the point. The point was you thought IDs for voting were not free. That is false. Stop moving the goalposts. >Good. Then you acknowledge that legal voters will be disenfranchised? Non sequitur. Proving you're eligibility to vote is not disenfranchisement.