Just show the movement that there nothing to hide rather than yell at them and appear to cover up.
It's a cult. It's like trying to convince them that aliens don't exist.
(Epstein would have been prosecuted .. if he hadn't died in extremely mysterious circumstances. Now that's a situation where absence of evidence where evidence should be expected - the security cameras - drives paranoia.)
For example, there were two months of audits, recounts, and countless court cases. The skeptics wanted an additional "ten day audit" on top of this, which would have consequences for the transition. After that audit, how do we know they'd have been satisfied? Nothing in the past has demonstrated their ability to be satisfied.
Both of those things happened. The prosecutors indicted Epstein, but he killed himself before the trial could proceed. The voting system has been audited many times this cycle.
> Just show the movement that there nothing to hide rather than yell at them and appear to cover up.
The real issue is "the movement" doesn't like the true result. It doesn't matter to them how fair the process is, they'll reject it unless they get what they want.
The insistence that our systems infallible is not at all helpful because anyone can see that's not true.
Once we get to admitting unchecked misconduct is possible in the current systems, we can make some progress to reducing those possibilities. Right now we're resisting that path, and that's just not sustainable.
If your claim is that it would have helped to deliver justice in every single case of injustice, promptly and transparently, then yes, that certainly makes for a better society and certainly everyone agrees with that goal but it's also never going to be 100% completed.
And if you remember 2004, there were serious allegations of unaudited changes to the voting system as well as coverups and hiding of important information (like what we knew about Iraq's weapons program or lack thereof), but the movement of people who objected to both of them did not storm anything. So there's something else different here.
This talking point - that mail-in votes were somehow less secure than previously - is such a post-hoc rationalization it makes me sick
The way out of this, IMHO, is to reverse course—to restore integrity to the media and generally to show the right that there is a good faith process through which their legitimate ideas can succeed and be rewarded. Trying to force an ideological hegemony isn’t going very well, however cathartic it may be or however right we are about our points and policy issues.
This question isn't asked in good faith.
Besides, it's actually irrelevant; those deaths are statistics. What was demanded was prosecutions of specific police for specific shootings of specific, named people such as Breonna Taylor.
It's up to the white community to decide if police shootings of white people are too frequent, not frequent enough, or whatever. That is irrelevant to the BLM question.
Why not? It seems like a perfectly reasonable question. You have a lot of people who are protesting and some who are even rioting on the pretense that racism is driving police to kill blacks in greater proportion than other races--surely they must have a good reason to think that it's racism and not crime rates or some other factor that correlates with race? It doesn't seem unreasonable to want some assurance that there's a good reason our cities are being burned and looted.
> Besides, it's actually irrelevant; those deaths are statistics. What was demanded was prosecutions of specific police for specific shootings of specific, named people such as Breonna Taylor.
Nope, "racial disparities in police killings" was frequently and ubiquitously cited as a motivation for the protests and riots. There was some back pedaling from some people that this isn't actually about race, but Black lives matter is actually just a generic movement against police brutality; however, that's plainly a farce.
> It's up to the white community to decide if police shootings of white people are too frequent, not frequent enough, or whatever. That is irrelevant to the BLM question.
What "white community"? Why should other people who have nothing but pigmentation in common with me decide the likelihood of me being killed by police? Why should we want 'race' to be a factor (as opposed to a correlation) in police killings at all? What is "the BLM question" if not "why are blacks killed disproportionately than whites"?
What institutions are you claiming have shifted from "truth-seeking to progressive political advocacy"? It seems to me that the reason these institutions appear more progressive is that American conservatism is becoming less and less in touch with the truth. There are countless examples, but the two most obvious ones are climate change and the politicization of basic COVID precautions like mask wearing. When you stake out the claim that acknowledging climate change is a progressive viewpoint, the National Weather Service is going to start looking progressive when it reports facts.
>when the right asks, “how do we know that racism and not crime rates belies police shooting disparities?”
The problem is that when these questions are answered "the right" just dismisses the answers as biased. There is little to no way to satisfactorily answer that question in a way that will change people's minds if they already believe that police are justifiably harsher against Black people because Black people commit more crime.
I think it's a feedback loop at this point, but as for "which institutions", the media and the academy are pretty prominent institutions that have largely come to describe themselves as activist institutions, including making arguments like "objectivity props up the status quo". Obviously these aren't monolithic institutions, and you still have a lot of variety within (especially the academy) with respect to the degree to which they've become progressive orthodoxies.
> The problem is that when these questions are answered "the right" just dismisses the answers as biased.
Again, I posit that's because the media and the social sciences have a track record of progressive bias. If they made a concerted effort over time to demonstrate good faith and a commitment to the truth wherever it leads (as opposed to outright identifying themselves as activists, although their honesty is worth something), I think far fewer on the right would reject a given claim as 'biased'. Even if I'm wrong, it must be something. There are a lot of people arguing that it's hopeless to interact with the right because they're fundamentally worse people or something, but clearly we haven't always had such a large contingent of "the right" who have completely divorced themselves from mainstream epistemology, so something is driving this change, and there's no reason to believe we can't stall or even reverse the phenomenon.
The most glaring example of this was public health authorities pushing for shut downs of pretty much all public spaces (including of red-coded protests), but then turning around and giving the greenlight to BLM protests as critical to public health.
Another example is the imbroglio about vaccine prioritization, though that's more about values (is it worth saving more lives if the saved lives are disproportionately white?) than it is about factual claims.
(I don't actually care what her relationship status was, but the assertion that it is widely reported (and would change people's opinion of her) seems dubious.)
The first poly person I ever met in tech was conservative.
I personally believe Q is an organization of trolls. They exploit/prey upon people's desire to be a part of something larger than themselves. I wouldn't be surprised if there's merely a couple handfuls of people all trying to outdo each other developing these conspiracies that keep to the Q lore/universe while spreading like fire. I don't think these people actually believe any of these conspiracies. They simply want to come up with ways to make other people believe what they want them to and act out on those beliefs.
Presumably there’s an FBI investigation into it and it seems unfathomable to me that intelligence agencies can’t figure out who is behind it.
There is probably no bringing back some of the people who have gone really far down that road if corporations and government act with transparency and consistency going forward I think it will bring many people back and prevent more from doing down that road.
For instance, if some people reevaluate their beliefs and come to a more generally accepted understanding of truth in the near future, the capital will still have been rioted.
To be clear, I'm in the "the 2020 election was fine" camp. I just think this is something a government "by the people" should be doing anyway.
Recently I read a comment that free speech only works if the speech is honest, and that resonated with me. So whatever the solution is, possibly start from there?
Minimize the displaying of symbols, especially those that symbolize difference in values.
Treat people equally. Same laws, same rules, same methods of handling people.
When there is an absolute need for borders, make the border distinct and obvious.
Symbolic actions of understanding can often be more important than practical actions.
