________________________________________________________________________________
People have lost trust in the system.
Its pretty much the worst thing that can happen to systems that are not supported by laws of nature. Fictional structures implode once trust is gone. Financial systems, ideologies, religions.. Gone..
No... this is exclusively Trump and his supporters trying desperately to de-legitimize the election by accusing Democrats of fraud despite no evidence of it - a tactic that's been in their playbook since Trump accused them of trying to "rig the election" in 2016. They've done everything from threaten to sue to showing up with armed mobs and harassing vote counters to spreading conspiracy theories about black sharpies[0] and Democrats burning Trump ballots[1] to now calling on state legislatures to override the election through faithless electors[2]. This _after_ all of the vote suppression efforts they've been undertaking prior to the election[3], implicating massive Democratic voter fraud and condemning mail-in ballots (I wonder why so many of them seem to be for Biden...), implicating Biden as a pedophile, the whole thing with his son's laptop, and of course the states doing their typical voter suppression regime.
This is not a societal issue, people in general have not lost trust in the system. This election has seen more engagement than any election in recent history. _One political party_ has been trying to undermine the system and sow mistrust within its own ranks in order to maintain political power.
[0]
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/05/sharpie-ballots-tru...
[1]
https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/04/business/ballot-burning-fake-...
[2]
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/11/donald-trump-jr...
[3]
https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/02/politics/ben-ginsberg-voter-s...
Disagree. I would say that even antifa is a loss of trust in the system - they don't believe that the legal and political systems will do the job of containing fascism, so they have to take it to the streets.
I agree with you. I watched a Vice documentary yesterday about a reporter going to Lauren Boebert rallys and everyone had just lost trust in the system, clear as day when she interviewed them. They know their politicians are corrupt, they know the business people are corrupt, they know the politicians are corrupt. They want normal everyday people or small local business owners running things.
The slowly increasing economic far-left & antifa are just a complete loss in faith of our system and the systems such as voting inside it.
Do you blame them? How many cops need to be exonerated for the blatant murder of our fellow citizens before "disband the police" actually starts sounding semi-reasonable?
I am not arguing that. I am arguing that krapp's claim (that "people in general have not lost trust in the system") is false.
You think that disbanding the police sounds semi-reasonable? (I think that starting by disbanding the police union, so that they can't protect neer-do-wells in uniform is where to start, but that's a side issue.) Then you're (I presume) on the left, and you are losing trust in the system. Which is my point.
Most people aren't in Antifa or BLM, and most people probably don't think disbanding the police entirely seems like a good idea, even if they agree that reform is necessary.
The US is approaching the highest rate of voter turnout since 1900 - during a pandemic no less - that doesn't happen if most people have lost faith in the system. If anything, a lot of people who might have, got religion over the last four years.
>>Most people aren't in Antifa or BLM, and most people probably don't think disbanding the police entirely seems like a good idea,
But that's not what they argue, is it?
I've seen calls to refund the police as a slogan that points out that it's far more effective to use resources on social policies that stop social problems from happening than wasting those resources mitigating avoidable problems. One of the textbook examples is homelessness, whose root cause is lack of a social safety net that helps people with mental problems cope with their condition instead of throwing them in jail. The other one is drug abuse, where it's far more cost effective to treat addictions as diseases than to throw drug addicts in jail.
The only instances I ever saw of calls being made to disband police departments were due to rampant systemic corruption problems affecting some police departments which are too entrenched to salvage, and how the US has already a long history of tackling that type of problem by replacing the whole police department with a brand new one.
One can have no faith in the system yet still vote. The turnout in this election is driven by the large polarization of the electorate ("the other side will do unspeakable things if you don't vote to save America!"), not by trust in the system.
We seem to be arguing at cross purposes. I'm talking about _people_ (as are most of the others here), and (I think) you're talking about _political parties_. (And you always have been in this thread, so my initial reply to you was where things went a bit sideways.)
But I think you're still wrong. The way the Democratic Party dealt with Bernie Sanders (twice) is not the sign of a party that believes in the system.
Roughly 50% of voters in this election voted for Trump. His approval rating amongst his own voters is in the high 90%'s. If Trump is saying that the election is fraudulent and undermining the Democratic institutions of this country, then by definition all of his supporters are complicit.
How is 50% of a nation's eligible voting population thinking that their future government is illegitimate _not_ a societal failure?
You gotta hand it to Putin. Two more election cycles like this and the US is toast and he never had to fire. a single shot. Turns out all you need to do is weaponize social media and use it against a country with low education standards like the US and you win.
Meanwhile we are building multi-billion super-carriers and investing in stealth technology and all Putin needs is a troll farm in St Petersburg whispering that America's biggest threat is BLM, Socialists and Obama/Biden/Democratic boogeyman.
The point I'm trying to get across is that this specific mistrust isn't organic, it's driven by political propaganda.
griffoa was arguing that people have lost trust in the system. Whether is it organically arosen from disagreement with the opposite side, or disinformation from political propaganda is a separate topic. It does not change the fact that america is a divided country where the rural half has lost trust in the urban half of the country.
>It does not change the fact that america is a divided country where the rural half has lost trust in the urban half of the country.
There is no "rural half" and "urban half." Trump's rural support is primarily from white voters, but his support among other demographics is far lower. Black people seem to be voting for Biden in droves this time, and not all of them are in cities. And per capita, the urban half is closer to 80% versus the rural 20%.
The narrative of "urban vs. rural" is populist propaganda, intended to imply that a solid half of the US supports Trump and that he represents the entirety of "rural" American identity, which isn't true.
You seem to be implying that the divide is not rural or urban, but whites vs blacks, or rural whites vs everyone else.
Seems to be away from the topic right? There is half the country supporting a candidate like trump because they are disgruntled of the other candidates. That was the point, and you don't get to wash your hands off the fact that the country is divided.
>You seem to be implying that the divide is not rural or urban, but whites vs blacks, or rural whites vs everyone else.
I'm implying that race and class divisions are more relevant in American culture and politics than rural vs. urban, yes. As is right vs left. The narrative that the primary motive for Trump's support is a deep cultural anger by rural Americans against city-dwellers is entirely populist fiction.
>There is half the country supporting a candidate like trump because they are disgruntled of the other candidates.
Only about half of eligible voters even voted in 2016, and only half of _them_ voted for Trump, a slight majority voted for Clinton. And eligible voters comprise about a third of the total population. Even if you took for granted that all rural voters support Trump, and all urban voters don't, Trump supporters would still be in the minority.
>and you don't get to wash your hands off the fact that the country is divided
Are you trying to imply there's _blood on my hands_? What precisely are you implying that I should be ashamed of?
Your increasingly accusatory tone makes me not want to continue this conversation further.
> Only about half of eligible voters even voted in 2016, and only half of them voted for Trump
~46%
> a slight majority voted for Clinton.
A plurality (~48%).
Trump had huge support amongst Hispanic voters this time around.
Also, urban vs rural may be propaganda, but it’s also simply true from a statistical point of view.
Its a country ruled by 2 deeply corrupt parties, this problem goes deeper than trump claiming mail in votes are evil
> _How is 50% of a nation's eligible voting population thinking that their future government is illegitimate not a societal failure?_
That’s a leap. Voters aren’t that ideologically coherent. A voter can vote for Trump, approve of Trump and not believe his every word about the electoral system.
If anything, their voting for Trump implicitly endorsed it.
I'm pretty sure like a used 1994 Ford Taurus worth of silly not even political ads on Facebook are the only social media manipulation by Russia evidenced? I may be wrong.
These are domestic problems and much larger and longer stemming than just Russia starting all of it. Things were this bad before Trump, but Trump ripped off the facade of "decency".
"Hillary Clinton warns of Trump trying to ‘sneak or steal his way’ to a second term"
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/19/hillary-clinton-dnc...
Every side accuses the other side of stealing the election. It's pretty much an american tradition. I bet in 2016, you were screaming at the top of your lungs that "Trump stole the election".
> One political party has been trying to undermine the system and sow mistrust within its own ranks in order to maintain political power.
Are you claiming that the republican and democratic parties are one and the same? Because you would be right.
I love all the democratic operatives here accusing Trump of delegitimizing the election process when that's all they've been doing the past 4 years. Now, it's the republican side's turn I guess.
Hypocrisy is the ugliest human trait.
I’m not sure who you’ve been talking to, but I haven’t seen any “democratic operatives” claiming that the Republicans committed fraud or delegitimizing the results.
Many claimed, and still do, that the Electoral College system is unfair (it was established to give Southern slave state’s additional representation vis-à-vis the 3/5ths compromise) and unneeded.
> I'm not sure who you’ve been talking to, but I haven’t seen any “democratic operatives” claiming that the Republicans committed fraud or delegitimizing the results.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooks_Brothers_riot
>I bet in 2016, you were screaming at the top of your lungs that "Trump stole the election".
Actually, no. But your liberal strawman is as expected as it is tedious.
No, the "both-sides are equal" thing isn't going to work. On the one hand, you have a quote by Hillary Clinton which is proving kind of correct in hindsight, on the other, literal armed mobs of Trump supporters threatening to stop the counting of votes by force, lawsuits, attempts to "override" the vote, and hoaxes perpetrated by Trump's own family.
These things are not equal.
> Actually, no. But your liberal strawman is as expected as it is tedious.
Not calling you are liar, but yours was the easiest lie I've ever spotted. You didn't think he stole? You didn't think russians got him elected? Or any of the other democratic talking points? Sure.
> No, the "both-sides are equal" thing isn't going to work.
It works because it's true. Both sides are hypocrites and both sides are liars. You and your "crazies" are just as cringey as the "crazies" on trump's side.
> On the one hand, you have a quote by Hillary Clinton ...
And the past 4 years of neverending 24/7 effort by a political party and the corporate media to delegitimize. Were you in a coma the last 4 years?
> which is proving kind of correct in hindsight
So you are saying it's true that Trump stole the election? Jesus you can't help yourself can you?
> on the other, literal armed mobs of Trump supporters threatening to stop the counting of votes by force, lawsuits, attempts to "override" the vote, and hoaxes perpetrated by Trump's own family.
You are right. There's no armed mobs on the anti-trump side. There have been no attempts to override the vote. No hoaxes. It's all just one side. Hypocrisy is truly the ugliest human trait.
I'll make a prediction. If Trump somehow wins, you'll be the first to whine about stolen election.
Yes they have. But can you blame them? The media, academia, scientists, WHO, CDC, the government, all lied purposefully and continuously during the pandemic. Social media is infused top to bottom with disinformation from all sorts of nefarious actors, foreign and domestic. It's a mess.
"On Thursday afternoon, Facebook banned the group on the basis of attempting to delegitimize the election process, and its role in potentially instigating physical violence."
No shit. Democracy is hanging by a thread in the US right now, with a president trying to shut down the democratic count and vote counters fearing for their life from crazies on the right. This is the right move.
If you look closely you'll find that group is trying to draw attention to election irregularities.
Facebook is not an arbiter of truth, it's a platform for staying in contact with others. And as such shouldn't have an opinion either way.
Once it steps outside of that role it's on a hiding to nothing as all sides will find fault - as they are.
Um... are they looking in to voter intimidation? showing up at polling stations with guns? blue dots on houses? Republican voter fraud? Something tells me they are not.
As far as I know, you can form groups about that too. Or at least you should be able to.
And if those groups form, and they plan kidnapping governors or running around town with guns I hope they are quickly shut down.
Facebook provides a service that people use. Improving the likelihood of finding accurate information may increase people's likelihood of using it. Taking down groups decreases that likelihood. Which is more important isn't always clear
> If you look closely you'll find that group is trying to draw attention to election irregularities.
Have they actually pointed any irregularity?
I see a lot of Trump fanatics parroting blatantly false and baseless claims involving all sorts of convenient irregularities, but so far I've seen zero actual evidence supporting any of the claims.
If there is indeed a massive wave of election fraud then where's the evidence?
Yes and QAnon claims to #SaveTheChildren. It doesn't mean they're actually making good faith efforts. Specifically, facebook mentions calls to violence.
Has Facebook shut down BLM or Antifa, both of which have been SHOWN to be violent?
Do they threaten/organise violence on facebook?
There needs to be a citizen group called ‘stop the disunity’ that tries to get people to talk to each other instead of yell at your friends who already agree with you in your social media filter bubbles
There are a few good subreddits for this, one is changemyview:
https://thenextweb.com/socialmedia/2019/01/23/reddits-model-...
It's sort of interesting too as a meta point how changing the incentives (away from karma to deltas) leads to different ways of engaging people. Another facet of "the medium is the message".
7 people would join it. 6 would be from the same gardening club.
What is there to talk about if the two groups assume completely opposite things?
Everything, of course, starting with the assumptions. The alternative is war and ultimately subjugation of one of the parties.
Everything
> There needs to be a citizen group called ‘stop the disunity’ that tries to get people to talk to each other
There was a serious attempt at this in
It was promptly banned from twitter and its founder's account was blocked on Facebook.
Why was it banned?
I wonder what the percentage of people calling for violence was. The article says there were 300k group members, and FB only said that "some" were calling for violence. You can find "some" people calling for violence in any group, so I'd like to know what the difference is here (regardless of whether or not the group has legitimate complaints).
Let be real here. Facebook wanted to shut it down and then looked for excuses. Violence, hate speech, etc. They would have found whatever they were looking for. This is pretty much the standard big tech M.O. No amount of calling for "violence" will shut down pages they like.
Also, doesn't this just incentivize political adversaries to join groups they don't like and make threats just to have pages shut down?
Sadly, this is just going to add gasoline to the fire. It's just going to antagonize and rile up these people more than anything.
> Let be real here. Facebook wanted to shut it down and then looked for excuses.
Does anyone has any problem understanding the reason why groups actively advocating for the subversion of democracy through violent means are obviously and naturally shut down in a free and democratic society?
In Trump, you have a candidate who acts, speaks and tries to govern like the most reviled dictators of the past 100 years, and millions of Americans enthusiastically gave him their vote. So I'd say nearly half of America is incapable of reasoning about liberty and democracy.
I took some time to try to understand why so many americans happened to vote for Trump and I was left with the impression that the problem lies more with disenfranchisement than with vilifying and even dehumanizing scapegoats.
Beyond the usual conservative tropes of less state and stopping attacks on personal freedoms, I've seen Trump voters mention deescalation of wars and international tension and lower taxes. I've also seen Trump supporters criticizing what they perceive as lawlessness and pending threat of state-sponsored oppression, such as the demands to erode law enforcement. Trump supporters were also quick to point out that both Obama and Biden were behind escalation of targeted assassinations on foreign soil and also increasing attacks on privacy and personal rights doemstically.
More importantly, I've seen Trump supporters state they voted for Trump in spite of his despicable personality and failings, because they see in him someone who enacts the policies they want enacted although he comes off as kind of a loudmouth moron. Yet, they also state that the public persona is also very skewed due to all the media manipulation and blatant propaganda that is targeted at him.
Those would normally be serious issues, but it's either historically ignorant or irrational to deal with them by supporting a leader like Trump.
> You can find "some" people calling for violence in any group
Uh, no, you can not.
Best part is that they even had a gofundme, which has subsequently been taken down. :)
I feel groups like this are the most predictable thing ever, as long as being an outrage junkie is socially rewarded.
Given how divided the country is, we need an electoral process we can have faith in. Foreigners are shocked when they learn we have no voter ID laws in many states (including PA), and there are no auditable paper trails for ballots cast.
Any Democrat who opposes voter ID laws and other reasonable measure to ensure election integrity with canards about "voter suppression" is playing with fire at this point, and should seriously mull over the consequences of most Repubicans believing you stole this election, and will henceforth steal every other presidential election.
This post would be perfectly fine on HN if people were actually discussing the pros and cons of Facebook taking such actions. However, as it stands, it's turned into an abstract debate over which entities are the cause of all the problems in the world. That isn't constructive, and HN really isn't the place for these kinds of debates.