Trump Suggests Delaying US Election in November

[slant]

@slant you entered this thread in attack mode.

That's your interpretation.

I don't think it makes a difference if the election is delayed or not, and besides the remark that was made by Trump, I see no concrete evidence that it's going to happen. So my opinion in this case is that this is all speculation with no real evidence to back it up that this will happen. That's part of the discussion; me saying that I don't actually think there is any evidence this is going to happen, and if it did, we would figure out what impact it has as it happens.

 

[Deleted member 16771]

If I understood that these threads were vent threads, and that the intention is to express frustration and that nobody wants open discussion, then I think I could respect that. I suppose I just didn't feel like that's how they're set up.

I don't think they are 'vent threads' and it would probably be quite welcome if someone argued the pros.

They'd be disagreed with, no doubt, but welcome in the context of the discussion nonetheless.

I don't think I see people as emotional as you tend to, even when they're swearing, lol, so I think that's why we can have different receptions of threads.

To me when these threads crop up I don't see them as responses to someone's personal emotional state, but something functional and naturally human. As old Aristotle wrote, 'man is a political animal' (though I think the translation 'civic' is closer to what he meant), and is naturally inclined to take an interest in the ordering and governance of his community.

It's not something dysfunctional at all, or anything particularly to do with individual psychological states, but something functional.

On top of that, citizens of democracies literally have a constitutional duty to consider these things, and not doing so is an abrogation of that duty. There is absolutely no nobility whatsoever in being apolitical and disengaged.

 

[Deleted member 16771]

That's your interpretation.

I don't think it makes a difference if the election is delayed or not, and besides the remark that was made by Trump, I see no concrete evidence that it's going to happen. So my opinion in this case is that this is all speculation with no real evidence to back it up that this will happen. That's part of the discussion; me saying that I don't actually think there is any evidence this is going to happen, and if it did, we would figure out what impact it has as it happens.

I don't understand this view.

Are you arguing against preparation?

The point about response to remarks is about policing the boundaries of the political discourse. Saying or floating certain things is intolerable, because it does lead to a stretching of the bounds of what is acceptable. This effect is quite well-studied though the name of the study I have in mind fails me - it's been used to great effect in Russian elections, for example.

I think you need to internalise the fact that 'the discourse' (what people are talking about, when, and how) is the state and has an incalculable effect on real future outcomes. From the point of view of social epistemology, this idea that 'talking changes nothing' is an egregious and naive misunderstanding of how ideas form and work, and how civic society functions.

 

[slant]

I don't understand this view.

Are you arguing against preparation?

The point about response to remarks is about policing the boundaries of the political discourse. Saying or floating certain things is intolerable, because it does lead to a stretching of the bounds of what is acceptable. This effect is quite well-studied though the name of the study I have in mind fails me - it's been used to great effect in Russian elections, for example.

I think you need to internalise the fact that 'the discourse' (what people are talking about, when, and how) is the state and has an incalculable effect on real future outcomes. From the point of view of social epistemology, this idea that 'talking changes nothing' is an egregious and naive misunderstanding of how ideas form and work, and how civic society functions.

The news media is already talking about it, that's how you heard about it. People are are aware it's happening. This specific conversation has no direct impact on Washington.

 

[Deleted member 16771]

This specific conversation has no direct impact on Washington.

The scale of our democracies can be daunting, but this just isn't true.

It's conversations like this which in aggregate creates the opinion of the body politic. Ideas transit rapidly throughout the social network and have a tangible effect on centres of power. Social network dynamics are spooky and counterintuitive, but the mathematics are solid and the empirical effects are traceable.

For instance, a well-known effect in social network dynamics is Mark Granovetter's 'strength of weak ties', which shows that it is the peripheral, weakly bonded nodes in a network that have the greatest epistemic effect on social networks since they tend to dump a lot of novelty into the network when they are connected.

The strongly-connected 'hubs' in a network rarely have these transformative effects because they are typically stable and old - the novelty has long since evaporated.

To speculate for a second, I think there's an interesting correlation between introverts, their minds and behaviours and the social network effects of 'the strength of weak ties' as compared to extroverts and the role of hubs in those same networks.

What I'm saying is that while the scale of these structures can make the individuals within it seem powerless, there are in fact plenty of mechanisms which put the lie to that belief.

 

[Deleted member 16771]

@slant I have a PDF of the original article, if you're interested. It deals specifically with linking micro-level interactions to the macro structure with some counterintuitive results (the aforementioned 'strength of weak ties'):

 

[noisebloom]

Hmm, so a personal anecdote that may or may not prove to be interesting food for thought (I never know)...

I had a good friend over for beers last night, and we were joking about Trump's suggestion to delay the election, and we also went over a number of hypotheticals, joking about how he probably wouldn't go quietly. This was all speculative, but the key was that it was all in good fun (though, I think the speculation is reasonable as he regularly seems paranoid about the integrity/authenticity of the very systems he's part of). I'm not a big fan of Trump, and the main reason is because his insecurity is off-putting and kind of worrying to me. There have been certain things he's done and potentially plans to do that affect people in my personal life, but I try to laugh about things at the end of the day.

I'm not entirely sure if everyone involved with thread feels the same, but I don't detect a lot of fear-mongering/negativity as much as unity around a common opinion, i.e. a healthy discussion over beers. The discussion becomes unhealthy once it starts affecting people's personal lives, mental health, ability to function, etc.

As to whether to this thread has any sort of purpose (I believe there was an implication that it does not), I generally think purpose is pretty arbitrary. There are things that I think are "important", but that's objectively BS... I just continue to post and talk about them, hoping that others will be interested, too. I try not to be dismissive of others' topics, but I will admit that I do sometimes... Not something I'm proud of.

 

[slant]

The scale of our democracies can be daunting, but this just isn't true.

It's conversations like this which in aggregate creates the opinion of the body politic. Ideas transit rapidly throughout the social network and have a tangible effect on centres of power. Social network dynamics are spooky and counterintuitive, but the mathematics are solid and the empirical effects are traceable.

For instance, a well-known effect in social network dynamics is Mark Granovetter's 'strength of weak ties', which shows that it is the peripheral, weakly bonded nodes in a network that have the greatest epistemic effect on social networks since they tend to dump a lot of novelty into the network when they are connected.

The strongly-connected 'hubs' in a network rarely have these transformative effects because they are typically stable and old - the novelty has long since evaporated.

To speculate for a second, I think there's an interesting correlation between introverts, their minds and behaviours and the social network effects of 'the strength of weak ties' as compared to extroverts and the role of hubs in those same networks.

What I'm saying is that while the scale of these structures can make the individuals within it seem powerless, there are in fact plenty of mechanisms which put the lie to that belief.

Fair

 

[slant]

Hmm, so a personal anecdote that may or may not prove to be interesting food for thought (I never know)...

I had a good friend over for beers last night, and we were joking about Trump's suggestion to delay the election, and we also went over a number of hypotheticals, joking about how he probably wouldn't go quietly. This was all speculative, but the key was that it was all in good fun (though, I think the speculation is reasonable as he regularly seems paranoid about the integrity/authenticity of the very systems he's part of). I'm not a big fan of Trump, and the main reason is because his insecurity is off-putting and kind of worrying to me. There have been certain things he's done and potentially plans to do that affect people in my personal life, but I try to laugh about things at the end of the day.

I'm not entirely sure if everyone involved with thread feels the same, but I don't detect a lot of fear-mongering/negativity as much as unity around a common opinion, i.e. a healthy discussion over beers. The discussion becomes unhealthy once it starts affecting people's personal lives, mental health, ability to function, etc.

As to whether to this thread has any sort of purpose (I believe there was an implication that it does not), I generally think purpose is pretty arbitrary. There are things that I think are "important", but that's objectively BS... I just continue to post and talk about them, hoping that others will be interested, too. I try not to be dismissive of others' topics, but I will admit that I do sometimes... Not something I'm proud of.

I guess I just don't share the same political beliefs so these threads aren't bonding for me, they are divisive. Makes sense.

 

[Deleted member 16771]

Fair

Ahh, so the way to your heart is Si. Remind me to gather my references if I ever intend to marry you.

I guess I just don't share the same political beliefs so these threads aren't bonding for me, they are divisive. Makes sense.

This is why everyone should have Te.

 

[noisebloom]

I guess I just don't share the same political beliefs so these threads aren't bonding for me, they are divisive. Makes sense.

Yup - politics tend to do that. I think there's also a sort of allure + dopamine response when someone agrees with you on the internet, especially when a good % of the world has been in isolation and seeking social connection and validation.

 

[noisebloom]

This is why everyone should have Te.

i could go for a nice cup of Te

 

[Deleted member 16771]

I could go for a nice cup of Te

For an English INTJ, this sounds like a come on.

 

[noisebloom]

Te is bullshit, because if squirrels really pooped like science says they do there'd be no avoiding it when walking to pick up the mail

/Ti logic

 

[pzl2lxie81mc]

The scale of our democracies can be daunting, but this just isn't true.

It's conversations like this which in aggregate creates the opinion of the body politic. Ideas transit rapidly throughout the social network and have a tangible effect on centres of power. Social network dynamics are spooky and counterintuitive, but the mathematics are solid and the empirical effects are traceable.

For instance, a well-known effect in social network dynamics is Mark Granovetter's 'strength of weak ties', which shows that it is the peripheral, weakly bonded nodes in a network that have the greatest epistemic effect on social networks since they tend to dump a lot of novelty into the network when they are connected.

The strongly-connected 'hubs' in a network rarely have these transformative effects because they are typically stable and old - the novelty has long since evaporated.

To speculate for a second, I think there's an interesting correlation between introverts, their minds and behaviours and the social network effects of 'the strength of weak ties' as compared to extroverts and the role of hubs in those same networks.

What I'm saying is that while the scale of these structures can make the individuals within it seem powerless, there are in fact plenty of mechanisms which put the lie to that belief.

Interesting.

I remember reading a story about Bjork and how she’ll go into a new project, build a network of collaborators and then just leave, and repeat with a new one. I think most artists don’t operate this way. It would be counter to maybe an internal value to uphold and preserve bonds, but Bjork is different and I can see her doing this to cultivate the novel and challenge herself creatively.

 

[acd]

Hmm, so a personal anecdote that may or may not prove to be interesting food for thought (I never know)...

I had a good friend over for beers last night, and we were joking about Trump's suggestion to delay the election, and we also went over a number of hypotheticals, joking about how he probably wouldn't go quietly. This was all speculative, but the key was that it was all in good fun (though, I think the speculation is reasonable as he regularly seems paranoid about the integrity/authenticity of the very systems he's part of). I'm not a big fan of Trump, and the main reason is because his insecurity is off-putting and kind of worrying to me. There have been certain things he's done and potentially plans to do that affect people in my personal life, but I try to laugh about things at the end of the day.

I'm not entirely sure if everyone involved with thread feels the same, but I don't detect a lot of fear-mongering/negativity as much as unity around a common opinion, i.e. a healthy discussion over beers. The discussion becomes unhealthy once it starts affecting people's personal lives, mental health, ability to function, etc.

As to whether to this thread has any sort of purpose (I believe there was an implication that it does not), I generally think purpose is pretty arbitrary. There are things that I think are "important", but that's objectively BS... I just continue to post and talk about them, hoping that others will be interested, too. I try not to be dismissive of others' topics, but I will admit that I do sometimes... Not something I'm proud of.

This is one of my favorite activities to do with pals. Just brainstorming more and more absurd and bizarre scenarios. Ne is fun. You have to be able to joke about this stuff too.

 

[pzl2lxie81mc]

For reference:

https://blogs.psychcentral.com/psychology-self/2018/08/narcissist-arguing/

“Another method that falls in this category is redefining to suit their narrative. For that purpose, they are keen on using euphemistic language or redefining commonly used words to fit their narrative when it clearly doesn’t. Again, the goal is to justify that what they are doing is good and what they are saying is right, even when it clearly isn’t.“

Here, Trump wants to redefine not the definition, but the terms of the election to suit an end result he’s already stated he won’t accept. His narcissism isn’t going away, so I would expect to see more stuff like this.

I also see him playing the dictator’s gambit and he will make in-roads with that, is my opinion.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/slate....rump-threat-to-delay-election-distraction.amp

I agree with this writer.

 

[Tamagochi]

For what it's worth, I didn't detect much 'anxiety and fear and anger' as much as a sober political discussion by an informed electorate in an important election year.

This thread reads quite normal to me and not particularly 'emotional'. A news story was shared, and the responses were mostly citizens expressing their desire to defend and uphold the democratic values of their republic. While that might be something 'important' and therefore with emotional resonances (as it should be), I think there's a difference between that tone and the 'emotional' one you suggest.

How about these instances:

I've been saying this since he got in. He will do whatever he can to stay in office.

Of course it would take an act of Congress to make this happen. He's teasing the idea for his base. But he won't go quietly when it's all said and done.

and your own:

Yep.
His base is pretty fanatical, perhaps he's hoping that some sort of political momentum gathers among them.

It seems to me that reactions in this thread ARE emotion (fear and frustration mostly) and not that many facts. So Slant is very welcome to add her opinion.

There is no justified reason to believe that Trump would actually resist leaving office or try to usurp power if he looses. And his base are not fanatics - it also includes a large number of highly intelligent people, who are able to defend their political position. Those same people who voted for him, would turn against him, the moment he becomes a dictator.

Sadly but a similar state of discourse exists in the opposing camp as well. They call Biden supporters blind fanatics too. Even though both parties declare their concern and respect for democratic tradition and values.

As for my personal opinion (I am not part of US) - election validity during pandemic is an open concern in many countries across the world. Unsurprisingly it's most often raised by the parties that are expecting a loss if it were carried out normally. So Trump talking about it publicly in his usual convoluted style is actually good news for dems. Translated to normal language: he is concerned about his chance for reelection in autumn.

 

[acd]

It seems to me that reactions in this thread ARE emotion (fear and frustration mostly) and not that many facts. So Slant is very welcome to add her opinion.

There is no justified reason to believe that Trump would actually resist leaving office or try to usurp power if he looses. And his base are not fanatics - it also includes a large number of highly intelligent people, who are able to defend their political position. Those same people who voted for him, would turn against him, the moment he becomes a dictator.

Sadly but a similar state of discourse exists in the opposing camp as well. They call Biden supporters blind fanatics too. Even though both parties declare their concern and respect for democratic tradition and values.

As for my personal opinion (I am not part of US) - election validity during pandemic is an open concern in many countries across the world. Unsurprisingly it's most often raised by the parties that are expecting a loss if it were carried out normally. So Trump talking about it publicly in his usual convoluted style is actually good news for dems. Translated to normal language: he is concerned about his chance for reelection in autumn.

Not interested in getting into a discussion about emotions here again. Not the topic. Maybe read more than a few posts here to use to make your point.

Trump has also "joked" several times about not leaving office. And it's already been discussed earlier why these "jokes" of his are a problem.

 

[Tamagochi]

Trump has also "joked" several times about not leaving office. And it's already been discussed earlier why these "jokes" of his are a problem.

So jokes are your best evidence for conspiracy? And it has lived in your head for 4 years now without paying rent.

There is no way Trump could manage an usurpation of power - he does not have the support. Neither the army, nor the republican party, not even his voters would come to his side. There's a small number of loonies who would be very enthusiastic on such an attempt, but that's it. Just like there are people longing for communist revolution on the far-left.