←back to thread

A Report on the Flawed 2016 Democratic Primaries

(drive.google.com)
212 points DamienSF | 8 comments | 27 Jul 16 05:59 UTC | HN request time: 0.92s | source | bottom
Show context
isuckatcoding ◴[27 Jul 16 07:04 UTC] No.12171043[source]▶
Not to sound like a conspiracy nut but this just reinforces the idea of a corrupt (if not idiotic) US voting/election system.
replies(3): >>12171057 #>>12171070 #>>12175869 #
1. m_mueller ◴[27 Jul 16 07:07 UTC] No.12171057[source]▶
> Not to sound like a conspiracy nut

The fact that you have to state that after being given this whole bunch of good evidence is a big part of the problem.

replies(4): >>12171067 #>>12171106 #>>12171654 #>>12173932 #
2. ◴[27 Jul 16 07:09 UTC] No.12171067[source]▶
3. isuckatcoding ◴[27 Jul 16 07:17 UTC] No.12171106[source]▶
Well the way the America is currently going, I am not sure any amount of good factual evidence will matter.

I think John Oliver described it best in his video a couple of days back. People seem to be motivated by feelings, not facts. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNdkrtfZP8I

replies(2): >>12171120 #>>12171185 #
4. maccilia ◴[27 Jul 16 07:22 UTC] No.12171120[source]▶
Sadly, what's even worse, is as I was reading this, I wondered if it might be an attempt to undermine the Democratic Party. The barrier for determining the origin of their funding and the organizational composition of the group is also high enough that I don't know how to figure out trustworthiness...
5. pdkl95 ◴[27 Jul 16 07:45 UTC] No.12171185[source]▶
> motivated by feelings

While it was written for the creationism/evolution argument, this[1] article is one of the better descriptions of this mode of thought.

While the typical HN reader uses language to convey ideas, to the creationist or the RNC attendees on John Oliver's show language instead is used first for phatic expression and social hierarchy. This is a language barrier; one side argues facts, while the other side defers to authority and feelings. Before any real communication can happen between the two sides, you first have to solve the language barrier.

[1] http://scienceblogs.com/clock/2007/05/31/more-than-just-resi...

replies(1): >>12182830 #
6. pas ◴[27 Jul 16 10:13 UTC] No.12171654[source]▶
The problem is, there are a lot of procedures for selecting electorates, and sometimes these are completely inadequate antiquated shitshows, but that's what the rules are, and they are yet another layer of aggregation and transformation that filters and distorts the "will of the people". And a lot of folks think that it's a conspiracy [that Bernie lost]. Well, no, it's a fucked up (broken?) system.

And of course this does not mean that there was no collusion between DNC and the Hillary campaign, and so on.

7. Kinnard ◴[27 Jul 16 16:02 UTC] No.12173932[source]▶
Amen!
8. Grishnakh ◴[28 Jul 16 20:17 UTC] No.12182830{3}[source]▶
Exactly. Another example of this was that debate a while ago between Ken Ham and Bill Nye the science guy, about evolution vs. creationism. No one actually "won" the debate; both sides claimed their guy won, because they were both speaking different languages. Nye spoke the language of science and everyone who has a scientific viewpoint of the world thought he won, whereas Ham spoke the language of fundamentalist religion and everyone who has that viewpoint thought he won.