Straw man or SJW
Dear All,
I’ve just had one of those facebook scraps which leaves you confused, numb and angry as hell. I’ve posted it below for your attention. The conversation is basically about how we should all react to the revelations that the Russians have been hacking the democratic process. As you will see I think it should be taken seriously but do not believe that either Brexit or the election of Trump can be explained solely by this revelation. In fact I think it is quite low in the list of things that swung both elections.
However my opponent in this debate has accused me of Straw maning his opinion, which seems to be the final result of any and all discussions I have with him.
I don’t think I did misrepresent his opinion but honestly I’m so tired of second guessing myself when it comes to this guy I thought I would simply ask you all to comment and confirm whether you think I am straw maning Mitch (all real names have been changed) or whether Mitch is an unrepentant SJW who is trying to reconstruct the debate when ever it is clear he is losing the argument.
So Straw man or SJW in the comments below please. Will looks forward to seeing whether I need to beg for forgiveness or whether I should stop doubting myself on this one!
Obviously I’d also be happy to discuss the topic with anyone if they want.
Pineapple Bill
I’d rather not get into the whole Brexit debate again. However a point has occurred to me that I’d like to share. I imagine that countries have been interfering in the politics of their rivals since time immemorial. I doubt that the KGB of the Cold War era was any less capable of this than their Russian successors. Isn’t the problem that modern social networks make democracies more susceptible to this king of interference the real issue? I get twitchy when people focus just on Russia and paint Putin as this great Machiavellian mastermind. Is he really that much better at this than the Chinese, the Saudis or the Israelis, I’m unconvinced.
I think the problem deserves serious consideration as potentially ANY country could interfere with our elections, but this paranoid Russian blame game is counterproductive. It should not be about what elections may have been effected so far (as this is impossible to quantify) but about how we can prevent or reduce foreign influence in our elections in the future.
Mitch
Potentially any person could be murdered, but the blame game is counter-productive. It should not be about who has been murdered already, it should be about who might get murdered in the future.
Pineapple Bill
Can you prove that Russian state sponsored interference is directly responsible for the election of Trump and the Brexit vote? Even if you did how would you go about reversing these elections without making millions of people feel that they had been disenfranchised? In short even if everything you have said is verifiably and incontestably true the ‘cure’ is likely to totally destroy democracy in the west.
Ben
Trump voters should feel disenfranchised by the notion that their candidate has not accomplished one. single. thing. he promised them, yet they don’t seem to care.
Who said anything about reversing elections? There is no mechanism for that. There are other elections. And referenda.
Pineapple Bill
And this is why absolutely nothing will be accomplished by this. I suggested that it would be in the west’s interest to investigate and put measures in place to prevent it happening again. I have argued that this is the best that we can hope to achieve since anything further would be a cure that is considerably more dangerous to democracy than what has already happened.
The response is a snarky comment from Mitch suggesting that this approach is the equivalent of ignoring a murder. In your case you have taken the opportunity to attack your political enemy and suggest that I am somehow constructing a straw man through my comments. I think this response would send most people who should be your allies in reform to instead oppose you as totally unrepentant political opportunists.
Mitch
I didn't say a thing about what can or can not be proved.
I merely showed your logic to be deeply ridiculous.
=
To continue the metaphor: We are not sure we can prove who murdered person X. Therefore we should abandon the attempt to achieve justice for the murder of X.
My logic would be: We should try REALLY HARD to find and punish the guilty partiesPERIOD
Because to abdicate that attempt is to have no moral compass whatsoever.
=
Snark be damned, the two logics are IDENTICAL.
Shoe Fits. PERIOD
Pineapple Bill
Your metaphor is ridiculous. An election can not be compared to a single murder like you have done. You can not compare the individual motivations and intentions of a murderer to the huge complexity as to why millions of people voted one way or another. Ignoring evidence regarding the first is a miscarriage of justice. Ignoring it on the second may be legitimate as the issue in question may not have been vital to the final election result. If you want to make the metaphor more realistic then it would be more accurate to compare what happened to a gun murder. Talking about banning guns after the event is not ignoring the original offence.
Mitch
Your rationale is ridiculous.
A crime is a crime.
(How millions of people voted is 100% irrelevant to the existence of this crime. The crime is election tampering. It is a crime whether the tampering changes the outcome, or not.)
Either you seek justice or you have no moral compass.
Pineapple Bill
So just to be clear what is your solution? Mine is that all people of whatever party should come together to pass laws to prevent or limit outside influence on our elections. Ben has berated me for suggesting that you solution may be to annul the elections and hold them again. So if not that then what? I’m honestly not sure what we are arguing about here.
Mitch
Just to be clear, I am not presenting a solution.
I am not in possession of all the facts.
I am standing for a process of justice.
=
In a process of justice, the machinery of the state seeks to accumulate all the possible evidence, then identifies those guilty of a crime, then punishes those found guilty.
=
Your "Process" is to ignore the possibility of a crime. Your process lacks a moral compass.
=
Perhaps, one possible solution is.... Putting Trump and many of his top aides in prison, for election tampering.
If the evidence shows them guilty.
Pineapple Bill
So your solution is to prosecute those responsible. But I thought that we were saying that the responsible parties were foreign government agents? It is not immoral to suggest that the US is not king of the world and can not prosecute heads of state etc of foreign governments. If any of your own people were involved then of course they should be prosecuted. But prosecuting Mr Russiaphile Goober will not solve the problem.
Unless by prosecute you mean impeach to which I would point you towards the fact that so far the evidence against Trump is week and you have gone back not forward in proving your case with the revelations about the Clinton campaigns potential links to the Bear. Also I can think of no move guaranteed more to ensure that nothing is done on the issue itself as yet another monumental bitch fight is commenced on Capital Hill.
Mitch
Why on god's green earth did you think I said those responsible were foreign government agents???
Please identify what I said that made you think that.
==
My position is about PROCESS, not who happens to be the guilty party or parties.
My position is that you are immorally abdicating the important process of determining exactly who those parties are.
Your position amounts to nothing except "Pay No Attention to the Man Behind the Curtain."
==
If one of the guilty parties is a sovereign nation, then the Government would have to deal with that, squarely, using sanctions, or war, or demands of some sort, or admitting it was impotent and pathetic, or something.
==
Prosecuting the guilty NEVER "Solves the Problem" presented by any sort of crime.
Prosecuting murder does not make murder go away.
Prosecuting election tampering does not make election tampering go away.
But ABDICATING the pursuit of Justice is, well, you know what it is.
And it ain't pretty.
Pineapple Bill
If those responsible were not foreign agents then no crime was committed and you are bitching about your political opponents legitimately using social media in elections. Foreign agency is the whole reason we are having the conversation. Suggesting that just because you haven’t specifically stated that fact does not make it any less true.
I would also like to ask you where in anything I have said I have suggested that we do not thoroughly investigate what has happened? I agree with you that process needs to be followed. If I think that there is little we will be able to do to punish and should therefore plan what we will do to prevent I am not suggesting that the process should be curtailed.
I’ve said my piece. I think those who care about democracy need to seriously address how social media may be used to influence our elections. I do not believe that this is should be a party political point. If you disagree with me I don’t really care. It is after all the left wing democrats in my own country that I am proposing to work with. If you are unwilling or unable to work with the right wing democratic aligned people in the US that is your own issue.
Mitch
Why on god's green earth did you think I said those responsible were foreign government agents???
Please identify what I said that made you think that.
Let me be clear, this (above) is a very important question.
It goes to either your honesty, or your simple reading comprehension.
Something about these are in doubt to me.
=
Is it not possible that "Russians did X" and "The Trump campaign knew and even encouraged this X"?????
Until we fully investigate this, we don't know.
It is a CRIMINAL investigation.
You have said REPEATEDLY that we should not care about this investigation!!!
Here are YOUR WORDS, from your original comment....
"It should not be about what elections may have been effected so far."
YES, IT SHOULD!!!!!!
It should be about EVERYTHING to do with this crime.
Guilty Americans should go to Jail.
Guilty nations should be pressured over it.
If that happened, our society would see the 2016 election as illegitimate. Mandate would drop to nil. The Democratic Wave of 2017 would turn into the Democratic Tsunami of 2018.
And THAT is what you are afraid of.
Pineapple Bill
I believe the difference between us is that you see this as a case of treasonous collusion with a foreign power. I don’t believe that anyone has proved this yet. I have no objection to investigating but until the weight of evidence is sufficient to take legal measure I believe it is irresponsible to make unsubstantiated accusations against your political opponents which undermines the very basis of our democratic system.
My concern is that modern life has made it much easier for foreign powers to interfere with our democratic processes without any treasonous assistance from within. I also want this investigated and then believe that we need to start a conversation between all democratically inclined people to try and find a solution.
The quote from me about it not being about the elections already held is not an attempt to protect people who have colluded with foreign powers. It is a rational observation that in the case where foreign interference in elections is detected it is still impossible to be certain that this interference was critical in the final result and therefore the election result has to remain.
As usual I find your questioning of my morality and total refusal to see a point from another angle as irritating and unjustified.
Mitch
I believe that you have prejudged the issue, and I have not.
You want to cast me as the prejudger.
That is a lie you tell yourself.
(Just like the lie about "you said those responsible were a foreign power." I notice how you avoid dealing with your error there)
=
The fact is, this is what I said....
Is it not possible that "Russians did X" and "The Trump campaign knew and even encouraged this X"?????
Until we fully investigate this, we don't know.
That PROVES I have not pre-judged it!!!
PERIOD.
=
So, until you can stop telling (yourself) lies about my position, this conversation can't progress towards truth.
It can only go round in circles as you insist that Mitch thinks things that Mitch SIMPLY DOES NOT THINK!!!!!
Your entire idea of my position is one giant strawman.
Pineapple Bill
You accuse me of being biased and prejudiced while you have been open minded and fair. Yet I note you have repeatedly stated that ‘a crime is a crime’ and ‘murder is no different’ but this presupposes that a crime has been committed. You accuse me of being biased because I do not accept that this is the case. Yet I have never denied the need to investigate only stated that AT THIS MOMENT there is no evidence. Not coming to conclusions until there is evidence to prove the case one way or the other is the antithesis on bias.
I note that you also state that I ‘pay no attention to the men behind the curtain’. I would respond that ASSUMING that there is a cabal of nefarious Machiavellian types pulling the strings from the background is the basis of every conspiracy theory out there. If you want to assume that I am naive or prejudiced for wanting a bit more evidence for this supposition than blind faith that is entirely your prerogative. However I retain the right to view the kind of argument that is used by every conspiracy nut from Flat Earthers to those who believe human civilisation was founded by Aliens with the contempt it deserves.
Mitch
NO, the words "A crime is a crime" do NOT presuppose a crime has been committed.
That's your strawman AGAIN.
Pineapple Bill
Decrying crime in a post that had previously not mentioned crime does suggest that the post presupposes a criminal act has occurred. I guess we will have to add self deception and the inability to see that the context of words do impart meaning as well as the words used to the list of you bull.