Media Bias

[Cunt]

You keep pointing out some sloppy cunt is wrong. It probably makes you feel smart.

Stay away from Crowders claims though. He is organized and smart. Wouldn't want to have to address that.

Thanks for the evasion.

Don't expect me to take you very seriously, or to answer to you when you demand it. I don't mind talking fitness with you, but don't trust your objectivity at all when politics comes up.

If you wanted serious discussion about a serious topic, pick fitness, ask, and I might consent to joining you. With politics, the only reason I answer now and then is to be polite. I just don't believe you, or read the longer posts you make.

Crowder may be careful, but he still makes mistakes. Going back to the problem of separating fraud from error --something Crowder acknowledges is difficult-- his own research contains the kind of errors we'd need to rule out e.g. typos which lead him to the wrong conclusion about addresses. Have you seen the video of his first example contrasted with a google map of the same address? It's funny. He has this picture of an empty lot where apartments are supposed to be, and he's like, see, lol, maybe there was a controlled demolition, wink, wink. But if his "guy on the ground" had turned around--literally, right behind him--is a 4 story apartment building. It's a claim of fraud that rest on a single digit, a 1 where a 2 should be.

Yes, and the state officials corrected the address. To another incorrect one, so there was an interview with said official.

That doesn't matter, as long as you have taken as much care ruling errors out, as he took chasing them down.

Did you?

[Hermit]

Don't expect me to take you very seriously, or to answer to you when you demand it. I don't mind talking fitness with you, but don't trust your objectivity at all when politics comes up.

If you wanted serious discussion about a serious topic, pick fitness, ask, and I might consent to joining you. With politics, the only reason I answer now and then is to be polite. I just don't believe you, or read the longer posts you make.

You're not telling me anything new about yourself.

[Sean Hayden]

Yes, and the state officials corrected the address. To another incorrect one, so there was an interview with said official.

--source? In this case the apartments are an assisted living home and they refused to say whether the voter lived there or not.

That doesn't matter, as long as you have taken as much care ruling errors out, as he took chasing them down.

Did you?

I don't know what that means.

Crowder is claiming he can prove massive voter fraud like that claimed by Trump.

1. Crowder has only presented a handful of cases

2. He has been unable to demonstrate fraud rather than error in the cases he does present

3. At least a few of his cases rely on mistakes he made e.g. taking down the wrong address

4. He provides no comparison of his cases to existing fraud research, so we have no context to judge the relevance of his handful of cases

I think that's a fair basis for ignoring Crowder's claims until he comes up with better. That's not to say that a bit of bullshit around the topic spawned by his efforts isn't worthwhile, or fun.

--//--

What did you think of Crowder's mistake regarding black offender rates and disparities in the prison population? I think it showed he's not a serious researcher. I'm not either.

I often dream of dedicating myself to some research question or other, but --like, life, you know?

[Cunt]

Yes, and the state officials corrected the address. To another incorrect one, so there was an interview with said official.

--source? In this case the apartments are an assisted living home and they refused to say whether the voter lived there or not.

That doesn't matter, as long as you have taken as much care ruling errors out, as he took chasing them down.

Did you?

I don't know what that means.

Yeah, I know.

He has taken specific care and diligence to present examples. Have you taken similar effort to disprove his examples?

Crowder is claiming he can prove massive voter fraud like that claimed by Trump.

Source?

I think you made that up, considering what he has said about the matter.

But I might have missed his claim. Or you might have assumed he said something erroneously.

1. Crowder has only presented a handful of cases

And told you how to use public databases to view a lot more, if you are interested in the evidence, that is.

2. He has been unable to demonstrate fraud rather than error in the cases he does present

Wouldn't use that word, since he didn't. He did, however, interview state officials about changes to the database where he has personal knowledge.

3. At least a few of his cases rely on mistakes he made e.g. taking down the wrong address

Did you search and find he made a mistake?

Did you do that kind of diligence with the voter roll? Or are you only interested in finding one particular outcome?

4. He provides no comparison of his cases to existing fraud research, so we have no context to judge the relevance of his handful of cases

You can search the roll against deliverable addresses in public databases, as he describes having done. Or you can just look for evidence that supports a 'no-fraud' narrative.

It's really popular. You might even say, pro-establishment.

I think that's a fair basis for ignoring Crowder's claims until he comes up with better. That's not to say that a bit of bullshit around the topic spawned by his efforts isn't worthwhile, or fun.

It really looks like rather than accept evidence, you will look for every reason why it might not be true.

Why not check it out? Do you have a state? Voter rolls? USPS/FEDEX databases? You could find out what kind of errors there are in your neighbourhood, making your next election more secure.

Or you could just say he probably made a mistake, despite his methods being open to scrutiny.

--//--

What did you think of Crowder's mistake regarding black offender rates and disparities in the prison population? I think it showed he's not a serious researcher. I'm not either.

I don't know about that mistake, but with the 'Kafka trap' of racism being what it is, I'll ignore it.

I remember what sides people took about the Maza case, despite the fact that Carlos said what he said about himself, quote mined Crowders video, and lost his job over being an ignorant shit.

Folks will still rush to defend the self-described 'lispy queer' though, because Crowder, the MONSTER, called him a lispy queer.

I often dream of dedicating myself to some research question or other, but --like, life, you know?

You could use his methods, to comb your neighbourhood and confirm legitimate voter addresses. This would improve the value of the votes your neighbours cast.

Er, neighbors, I mean.

[Sean Hayden]

Sean: Crowder is claiming he can prove massive voter fraud like that claimed by Trump.

Cunt: Source? I think you made that up, considering what he has said about the matter.

One source:



Sean: 1. Crowder has only presented a handful of cases

Cunt: And told you how to use public databases to view a lot more, if you are interested in the evidence, that is.

That isn’t a reasonable response. If you claim there is massive voter fraud then starting with an appropriate sample is necessary.

Sean: 2. He has been unable to demonstrate fraud rather than error in the cases he does present

Cunt: Wouldn't use that word, since he didn't. He did, however, interview state officials about changes to the database where he has personal knowledge.

He did use that word, see above. Database changes are like death and taxes.

Sean: 3. At least a few of his cases rely on mistakes he made e.g. taking down the wrong address

Cunt: Did you search and find he made a mistake? Did you do that kind of diligence with the voter roll? Or are you only interested in finding one particular outcome?

This misses the point. Without a massive list to corroborate his claims of massive fraud each individual case takes on that much more importance. Also, again, research doesn’t work by making a claim and then having me back it up. If there are many more claims that don’t have errors then they need to be included.

Sean: 4. He provides no comparison of his cases to existing fraud research, so we have no context to judge the relevance of his handful of cases

Cunt: You can search the roll against deliverable addresses in public databases, as he describes having done. Or you can just look for evidence that supports a 'no-fraud' narrative. It's really popular. You might even say, pro-establishment.

Again, that isn’t how research works. Furthermore you’ve failed to address the actual point of 4, without a comparison to existing fraud research we can’t know the relevance of the cases he does present. He needs to include background…

Cunt: It really looks like rather than accept evidence, you will look for every reason why it might not be true.

I’m sorry you feel that way. I accept fraud exist. I will even accept that Crowder has found some cases if he is able to demonstrate it.

But my skepticism is part of the process.

Sean: What did you think of Crowder's mistake regarding black offender rates and disparities in the prison population? I think it showed he's not a serious researcher. I'm not either.

Cunt: I don't know about that mistake, but with the 'Kafka trap' of racism being what it is, I'll ignore it.

That sounds irrational.

[Cunt]

Sean: Crowder is claiming he can prove massive voter fraud like that claimed by Trump.

Cunt: Source? I think you made that up, considering what he has said about the matter.

One source:



Sean: 1. Crowder has only presented a handful of cases

Cunt: And told you how to use public databases to view a lot more, if you are interested in the evidence, that is.

That isn’t a reasonable response. If you claim there is massive voter fraud then starting with an appropriate sample is necessary.

12 is a mass.

Is it not enough mass? I asked before if it would take 1, 10 or a thousand, before you thought it was important. Remember, with you only having one legal vote to exert, even one bad vote negates your political 'voice'.

Sean: 2. He has been unable to demonstrate fraud rather than error in the cases he does present

Yes, it is an error, and while you examine his errors closely, you don't seem to have checked for errors in the other direction.

Agenda, or something else?

Sean: 3. At least a few of his cases rely on mistakes he made e.g. taking down the wrong address

Cunt: Did you search and find he made a mistake? Did you do that kind of diligence with the voter roll? Or are you only interested in finding one particular outcome?

This misses the point. Without a massive list to corroborate his claims of massive fraud each individual case takes on that much more importance. Also, again, research doesn’t work by making a claim and then having me back it up. If there are many more claims that don’t have errors then they need to be included.

He is not allowed, by the social media owners, to show how many he found in the database that are 'undeliverable addresses', but he points out that while he can't make a claim about it, anyone can do the same research to find out.

Of course, if you say so on those tech platforms, you might have a problem, but there is no problem checking yourself.

Sean: 4. He provides no comparison of his cases to existing fraud research, so we have no context to judge the relevance of his handful of cases

And explains why, if you listen to him.

If you would rather refute his claims, by my memory of them, come smoke one, and we can have a laugh.

Or be more rigorous than interviewing some sloppy cunt about it.

I know you like sloppy Cunt, but it doesn't mean as much as checking the real details yourself, does it?

Cunt: You can search the roll against deliverable addresses in public databases, as he describes having done. Or you can just look for evidence that supports a 'no-fraud' narrative. It's really popular. You might even say, pro-establishment.

Again, that isn’t how research works. Furthermore you’ve failed to address the actual point of 4, without a comparison to existing fraud research we can’t know the relevance of the cases he does present. He needs to include background…

Social media companies won't allow him to make that more clear, but he tells you how you can do it for yourself.

Cunt: It really looks like rather than accept evidence, you will look for every reason why it might not be true.

I’m sorry you feel that way. I accept fraud exist. I will even accept that Crowder has found some cases if he is able to demonstrate it.

But my skepticism is part of the process.

You are quite skeptical of me, and of Crowder.

Why though, not repeat his examination of voter rolls to satisfy yourself with the real data, rather than his or my thoughts on it?

Sean: What did you think of Crowder's mistake regarding black offender rates and disparities in the prison population? I think it showed he's not a serious researcher. I'm not either.

Cunt: I don't know about that mistake, but with the 'Kafka trap' of racism being what it is, I'll ignore it.

That sounds irrational.

It sure does. Look up Kafka trap, and consider how it applies to criticizing Patriot Prayer. Then do a lefty org, like BLM or Antifa.

I'm not asking you to do that to show ME anything, just to help you understand my reluctance to take the lead on it. You go ahead, and it is likely I don't disagree with your take.

I think Crowder makes mistakes, I think he is biased.

I also think the somewhat wealthy and powerful use social media companies to manipulate public discourse, and he runs afoul of it regularly. He's made it part of his show. Half-Asian Lawyer Bill Richmond is really a lawyer. Not sure about the claim of half-asian though. Definitions like that are too slippery for me.

He also makes some points that regular people are mostly silent about, because of those 'Kafka traps' (whether people know the name or not, the tactic is pretty regular). It makes him very easy to attack, such as Maza did. Do you know how Maza tried to damage Crowders business? (I think they call the overall story the 'Vox Adpocalypse)

[Joe]

Yes, I'd rather hear from you than Crowder.

Curious, but I'll try.
He found the voter registration.
He ran that database against fedex/ups/USPS databases (or some) and found 'undeliverable addresses'.
With those clues, he himself or his staff went to look at them physically, so that they could state that they themselves knew those examples were false.
One of those, was corrected by the state.
The corrected address was checked by Crowder staff. It was bunkum.
Crowder called the state staffers to ask questions. They didn't give much in the way of answers.

I asked when I ran over this before, as Crowder did, how many examples like that does it take to make you think it was fraud?

I guess another way to ask, is how many votes count?

Okay, you say there was fraud. You've also said the courts declined to hear evidence of that fraud. Is that right?

I say courts that dismiss a case on standing, don't have to hear evidence.

As to who has heard evidence of fraud, it sounds like you haven't (you still have my sloppy memory, instead of Crowders legally-cautious public statements...)

Who else hasn't heard them?

Uh, the court has to allow enough evidence be submitted to let a plaintiff show that they have standing. Standing is the right to sue, and Trump's lawyers would have to show he had suffered an injury that the court could do something about, that the people they were suing were the cause of the injury, and that they had a likely chance of winning a favorable judgement. This is how the courts weed out weak cases.

Here's the legalese.

If you can't establish standing, your case is weak. Were all the cases dismissed for lack of standing?

So Cunt, were all the Trump election cases dismissed for lack of standing?

[Cunt]

Bump all you want, Joe. Just note that you can follow me around, misrepresent my view, and never have to address real facts, like public databases.

Because why work to find 'enough' fraud, when it would go against your favoured candidate.

[Joe]

Bump all you want, Joe. Just note that you can follow me around, misrepresent my view, and never have to address real facts, like public databases.

Because why work to find 'enough' fraud, when it would go against your favoured candidate.

It's a reasonable question Cunt, and a natural continuation of the conversation we were having. Court cases are real facts, and being backed by the power of the State, are the most significant facts.

So why not answer the question?

[Brian Peacock]

For the lolz?

[Cunt]

Bump all you want, Joe. Just note that you can follow me around, misrepresent my view, and never have to address real facts, like public databases.

Because why work to find 'enough' fraud, when it would go against your favoured candidate.

It's a reasonable question Cunt, and a natural continuation of the conversation we were having. Court cases are real facts, and being backed by the power of the State, are the most significant facts.

So why not answer the question?

You asked me about 'all the cases'. I answered you.

want to keep asking more reasonable questions? Try about fitness. I find that more interesting.

Especially since, those of you who seem to enjoy contradicting me, can't seem to find a single fact I get wrong about that.

[Joe]

Careful, you're gonna trigger some sensitive soul.

[Cunt]

There is a media bias against honest discussion of a healthy bodyfat level for humans.

"$$media bia$$"

[Brian Peacock]

Sometimes I wonder if you're the only non-fat, physically fit bloke on the planet.

[Cunt]

Sometimes I wonder if you're the only non-fat, physically fit bloke on the planet.

You would be wrong.

I'm fat, and out of shape.

Sometimes I wonder why you are so reluctant to engage honestly on this topic.