Nevada potentially could recount

[Alcon]

Since evergreen doesn't want to engage, I will: I don't post on Bad Atlas very often but I lurk and I find this new take of yours to be very irritating because it's totally disingenuous. Considering that Trump is a fascist who has shown little regard for the Constitution, human rights and racial minorities, is it really a mystery that Democrats would want to delegitimize his election?

I'm not sure what "logic" or "reason" would dictate here. Am I supposed to say "ah yes, democracy worked as intended because the interests of the public were made clear at the ballot box,"? The public voted against me in a very personal manner and also voted for a scumbag who is a threat to democracy, liberalism, freedom, tolerance etc. This is what Trump hath wrought and he could mend these attitudes but you cannot run a campaign like he ran over the past two years and expect anyone to respect him. He has destroyed democratic mechanisms which were already crumbling and there's no turning back now. The Rubicon has been crossed and the goal is to resist this Fascist.

To be blunt, no, I don't particularly care whether or not the public legitimately or illegitimately elected a fascist to be President of the United States. Intellectually, the outcome appears to be legitimate to me but my reaction would be the same: do everything in my power to ensure that Trump fails and fails miserably in his quest to plunder, loot and pillage from the American people, and in his quest to turn America into a disturbing Apartheid state. "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice".

How does any of that mean my argument disingenuous?

Even assuming that I was doing more than getting Evergreen to specify whether she actually thought it was a sham election, or is just arguing that it's OK to be disingenuous about the results for political purposes...how would that make my argument disingenuous?  Do you think my argument is somehow predicated on me feigning belief that Donald Trump isn't toxic to democratic institutions, and at heart an authoritarian bully jerk?  Let me be clear: I absolutely think he is both of those things.  If you think otherwise, you haven't been paying attention to my posts over the last few months.

What is disingenuous is your apparent belief that my argument is based on "respecting" Trump, or opposing efforts to "resist" him, or that "extremism" is inherently wrong.  I have never made any of those arguments.  If you are addressing bad arguments that other people made -- I'm not going to defend those.  The "let's give Trump a chance!" school of thought is pollyannaish idiocy.  I am prepared to argue that democratic institutions and pluralism aren't so utterly destroyed it's a good idea to subject chaotic attempts at power-plays and mass-lying.  If you want to have a conversation about why we disagree about this, fine, but calling my argument "disingenuous" when you really just mean "I disagree" is...well...super disingenuous.

I don't totally get your "logic" and "reason" comments.   Maybe I'm wrong, but I get the impression that you're still annoyed from the time I argued that it wasn't sufficient to dismiss an argument or truth proposition just because it's often posed by people you feel are hostile to your personal identity or set of values.  If that's the case, I think you're failing to see why I think that's so important.  It's not because I think logic and truth are some ultimate ideal, and we should blare socially problematic truths from loudspeakers because THE TRUTH!11.  It's because I think tribalistic moralism can be extremely goddamn dangerous, and is a big part of why the vast majority of human history has involved more homicide, suffering, and oppression than the current day.  I'm willing to discuss why I believe that, but don't call my argument "disingenuous" on the presumption that I don't think about this stuff.

And, finally, if you were arguing it was disingenuous because I knew Evergreen doesn't actually believe there was systemic tampering: apparently she does.

[Alcon]

both, actually. i strongly believe the election results were tampered with (both quasi-legally by the surge in voter-disenfranchisement laws and more shadily),

Really?  Why do you believe that?

Also, do you think that the existence of disenfranchising election laws (passed through legislative processes) is sufficient to consider every election under them (or at least those that could have had different outcomes with other laws) null and void?

but even if they weren't, a presidency that fundamentally violates the principles of civilisation and humanity cannot be legitimised (delegitimising one election < allowing the permanent delegitimisation of america as a whole)

this article summarizes some good reasons for the latter:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

can continue this argument when i get home if you want

Appreciate it!  I get the sense that you and DeadFlag are making about the same argument, so let me hold off until I see his next reply (you can just address the part above until then if you want).  I also have a bunch of work stuff stacked up, so it may take me a few anyway.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

both, actually. i strongly believe the election results were tampered with (both quasi-legally by the surge in voter-disenfranchisement laws and more shadily),

Really?  Why do you believe that?

largely gut feeling, i'll admit. trump's scramble to block the recounts, especially, even though he himself claimed that millions of people voted illegally and neither his nor the taxpayers' resources are beïng used, is incredibly suspicious, and the long republican record of election fraud speaks for itself.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

not automatically, but in conjunction with, well, everything else about this year…

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Since evergreen doesn't want to engage, I will: I don't post on Bad Atlas very often but I lurk and I find this new take of yours to be very irritating because it's totally disingenuous. Considering that Trump is a fascist who has shown little regard for the Constitution, human rights and racial minorities, is it really a mystery that Democrats would want to delegitimize his election?

I'm not sure what "logic" or "reason" would dictate here. Am I supposed to say "ah yes, democracy worked as intended because the interests of the public were made clear at the ballot box,"? The public voted against me in a very personal manner and also voted for a scumbag who is a threat to democracy, liberalism, freedom, tolerance etc. This is what Trump hath wrought and he could mend these attitudes but you cannot run a campaign like he ran over the past two years and expect anyone to respect him. He has destroyed democratic mechanisms which were already crumbling and there's no turning back now. The Rubicon has been crossed and the goal is to resist this Fascist.

To be blunt, no, I don't particularly care whether or not the public legitimately or illegitimately elected a fascist to be President of the United States. Intellectually, the outcome appears to be legitimate to me but my reaction would be the same: do everything in my power to ensure that Trump fails and fails miserably in his quest to plunder, loot and pillage from the American people, and in his quest to turn America into a disturbing Apartheid state. "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice".

How does any of that mean my argument disingenuous?

Even assuming that I was doing more than getting Evergreen to specify whether she actually thought it was a sham election, or is just arguing that it's OK to be disingenuous about the results for political purposes...how would that make my argument disingenuous?  Do you think my argument is somehow predicated on me feigning belief that Donald Trump isn't toxic to democratic institutions, and at heart an authoritarian bully jerk?  Let me be clear: I absolutely think he is both of those things.  If you think otherwise, you haven't been paying attention to my posts over the last few months.

What is disingenuous is your apparent belief that my argument is based on "respecting" Trump, or opposing efforts to "resist" him, or that "extremism" is inherently wrong.  I have never made any of those arguments.  If you are addressing bad arguments that other people made -- I'm not going to defend those.  The "let's give Trump a chance!" school of thought is pollyannaish idiocy.  I am prepared to argue that democratic institutions and pluralism aren't so utterly destroyed it's a good idea to subject chaotic attempts at power-plays and mass-lying.  If you want to have a conversation about why we disagree about this, fine, but calling my argument "disingenuous" when you really just mean "I disagree" is...well...super disingenuous.

I don't totally get your "logic" and "reason" comments.   Maybe I'm wrong, but I get the impression that you're still annoyed from the time I argued that it wasn't sufficient to dismiss an argument or truth proposition just because it's often posed by people you feel are hostile to your personal identity or set of values.  If that's the case, I think you're failing to see why I think that's so important.  It's not because I think logic and truth are some ultimate ideal, and we should blare socially problematic truths from loudspeakers because THE TRUTH!11.  It's because I think tribalistic moralism can be extremely goddamn dangerous, and is a big part of why the vast majority of human history has involved more homicide, suffering, and oppression than the current day.  I'm willing to discuss why I believe that, but don't call my argument "disingenuous" on the presumption that I don't think about this stuff.

And, finally, if you were arguing it was disingenuous because I knew Evergreen doesn't actually believe there was systemic tampering: apparently she does.

It is disingenuous because it ignores the context in which these claims are being made. These are abnormal circumstances and, implicit to your critique is a belief in proceduralism that doesn't hold water at this point. I think you're smart so I assume that you understand the context and that you're informed by the constant barrage of writing about Trump's authoritarian tendencies, how we should take autocrats' statements seriously etc. If you understand these things, there's nothing surprising about the loss of confidence in proceduralism and there's no reason to think that it is an expression of "tribalism" so much as it is an attempt of "self-protection" and political strategy.

Then there's the shady and disturbing aspects in which this election took place, with clear and present Russian interference in the election and the FBI violating the Hatch Act to give Trump an edge. This might not be sufficient to have evidence of mass election tampering but it is sufficient to give people concern about the validity of the election results, particularly when the belief/faith in procedural democracy no longer makes much sense.

As far as my "logic and reason" claims, yes, I am still irritated about past statements you've made. Looking back on our past discussion on racial pseudo-science, it appears that you underestimated the threat of this work and your fidelity to the arguments of people like Sam Harris or Haidt against "tribal morality" trumped your recognition of the threat of fascism, white supremacy etc. There's nothing tribal about attempting to inject a concern for broad social consequences, ethics and philosophy into arguments that take place within social science. Social scientists ought to be concerned about the effects of their arguments and the ethical implications of their publications. Because there are no real "truths" within the discipline, just expressions of tendencies that are contingent upon context and circumstance, there must be an emphasis on values within any social scientific discipline and an attempt to be transparent about the values that shape one's work. This, of course, is just an opinion of mine and you can disagree but I'm not going to lie and make the argument that our past discussions do not inform my tone here.

In truth, I view people like Sam Harris, Haidt and the like to be as dangerous as their opponents. This idea that "pluralism of belief" is a value is rotten at its core and the failure to defend the right of associations to exclude people on the basis of belief is part and parcel of the total inability of our public institutions to defend themselves against the spread of fascism. The defense of "free speech" that attacked censure rather than censorship also played no small role in allowing fascism to rise in its importance. All in all, I hope that this election makes you reflect upon this as it has made me reflect upon my commitment to "liberal freedoms" and proceduralism (my conclusion is that I underestimated the importance of these things and I feel ashamed about this). I find myself agreeing with critiques of SJWism more now than I used to as I also find myself feeling more irritated at the naive fools who believe that it makes sense to give fascists a platform in the public square.

edit: forgot to address your claim about the strategic validity of recounts. I agree that there probably isn't strategic validity here and I think that my irritation stems from, perhaps, the lack of recognition that this is inevitable or highly likely. Making these arguments doesn't seem to serve any particular purpose at this point (democracy is pretty tarnished now, I think, and there's little trust in our institutions; this is what we'd expect to occur) and it becomes hard to determine the intent of the argument. It seems to run roughshod over the legitimate and real concerns that racial minorities have. Now, it appears that I am mistaken but I wanted to make this clear for the sake of being transparent.