Although I’d say that the math involved in the election fraud theory isn’t as big as it may seem; appears to be only a relatively small number of precincts that happen to be in counties and states controlled by Democrats. Could be wrong, 80% sure. Too disgusted to dive into the details and numbers again.
Great to see you on Substack, BJ. I'm one of those Patreon supporters who flip you a bit of beer money every month. I'm also someone who Medium shadow banned for a few years, so I'm happy to see you leave that platform. Well done!
AnonymousJan 8, 2021Liked by Handwaving Freakoutery
Very glad to see you on Substack, BJ! Spot on analysis, IMO. My Canadian family is wondering whats in the water down here. We're all so accustomed to it now, thanks to the media, that this is just business as usual.
Your initial premise is incorrect. I did not read further. “During a coup, a government's executive authority is displaced or removed suddenly and by illegal means, according to the Coup D'état Project (CDP) at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign's Cline Center for Advanced Social Research.
Coups are not always violent, and they typically originate with small, elite groups already within the government. However, a coup can also be triggered by military actions, the involvement of operators representing foreign governments, or popular revolts "manifested by high levels of civil unrest," the CDP says.”
This is exactly the kind of mental masturbation masquerading as "critical thought" that has led our country to the brink. Millions of blowhard bloggers trying to find some angle to feel smart have muddied the reality playing out before our eyes. The “statistics" angle is wearying. For example, does your “black folks are more likely to be involved in crime” statistic (so breezily referenced, so broad, yet your main arguments against BLM are built upon it) take into account that Black people are disproportionately policed? Disproportionately pulled over, disproportionately searched for little to no reason? Does it take into account that a Black middle-schooler caught with cigarette lighter at a Black public school (yes, we still have those!) is arrested and charged, while a white middle-schooler with a lighter in a white school in the same city is just sent to the principal’s office? What we can accurately measure in statistics are simpler phenomenon that can be simply measured, which eludes more complex systems and certainly a charge as broad as being “involved in crime.” Racism of course is a complex web—a hellbrew of injustices that routinely traps Black people in a punitive death spiral in every aspect of their lives, from employment to housing to education to healthcare to social services to incarceration—the cumulative effect cannot be captured by statistics. Yet, the cumulative effect determines what we call crime and where and who we police. Where did your “statistic” that Black people are more likely to be involved in crime come from? Are they from the FBI financial crimes unit? College disciplinary boards? Are they police statistics? I suspect the latter. If so, when BLM complains that Black people are consistently and unfairly targeted by the police, you then quote a police statistic that may very well reflect that grievance to prove that they’re deserving of such treatment? The logic is mind-boggling and reveals perfectly the ways in which statistics have been used for such a long time to perpetuate racism. I’m tired of white vultures mansplaining Black “statistics” from their panic bunkers in the suburbs. Also, sex is biological. Gender is a social construct. No one’s arguing to have 37 boxes to mark on birth certificates. And maybe in comparing the “similarities” between the anti-science preoccupations of the right and the left, you should also compare the consequences of denying climate change to the horrific consequences that befall our world when people can choose what bathroom stall to take a dump in. Even more fundamental to your “anti-science” argument, do you care to distinguish between hard science (gasses, elements, etc. and the laws that govern climate science) vs. the social sciences (like statistics, IQ tests, etc.) that are incredibly elastic, always changing, and have a long, long dark history of discrimination? Yes, perhaps you should look into the history of your beloved statistics, on which heap all your faith. They can be useful, sure, but to rely on them to interpret absolutely everything narrow and broad is the tactic of a lazy mind. Good God, I could go on, but I feel like I’ve put more thought into this comment than you did in your post. But I will close in addressing perhaps your most astoundingly naïve assertation: that the Capitol rioters were buffoons not to be taken seriously. You know, everyone said that the orange-hued, raging, racist gameshow clown that was 2016 candidate Trump was a buffoon. Few people took him seriously—including people I know who voted for him—until he’d already won the election and was bragging to hostile nations that his nuclear button was “bigger.” If we have learned one goddamned thing over these four disastrous years, is it not to take buffoons seriously?? After all, that is the only reason I wasted ten minutes of my life reading your blog. It’s easy to “think a lot” when you’re thinking in a vacuum…
Although I’d say that the math involved in the election fraud theory isn’t as big as it may seem; appears to be only a relatively small number of precincts that happen to be in counties and states controlled by Democrats. Could be wrong, 80% sure. Too disgusted to dive into the details and numbers again.
Great to see you on Substack, BJ. I'm one of those Patreon supporters who flip you a bit of beer money every month. I'm also someone who Medium shadow banned for a few years, so I'm happy to see you leave that platform. Well done!
Very glad to see you on Substack, BJ! Spot on analysis, IMO. My Canadian family is wondering whats in the water down here. We're all so accustomed to it now, thanks to the media, that this is just business as usual.
Wow. Very well done overall.
Your initial premise is incorrect. I did not read further. “During a coup, a government's executive authority is displaced or removed suddenly and by illegal means, according to the Coup D'état Project (CDP) at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign's Cline Center for Advanced Social Research.
Coups are not always violent, and they typically originate with small, elite groups already within the government. However, a coup can also be triggered by military actions, the involvement of operators representing foreign governments, or popular revolts "manifested by high levels of civil unrest," the CDP says.”
This is exactly the kind of mental masturbation masquerading as "critical thought" that has led our country to the brink. Millions of blowhard bloggers trying to find some angle to feel smart have muddied the reality playing out before our eyes. The “statistics" angle is wearying. For example, does your “black folks are more likely to be involved in crime” statistic (so breezily referenced, so broad, yet your main arguments against BLM are built upon it) take into account that Black people are disproportionately policed? Disproportionately pulled over, disproportionately searched for little to no reason? Does it take into account that a Black middle-schooler caught with cigarette lighter at a Black public school (yes, we still have those!) is arrested and charged, while a white middle-schooler with a lighter in a white school in the same city is just sent to the principal’s office? What we can accurately measure in statistics are simpler phenomenon that can be simply measured, which eludes more complex systems and certainly a charge as broad as being “involved in crime.” Racism of course is a complex web—a hellbrew of injustices that routinely traps Black people in a punitive death spiral in every aspect of their lives, from employment to housing to education to healthcare to social services to incarceration—the cumulative effect cannot be captured by statistics. Yet, the cumulative effect determines what we call crime and where and who we police. Where did your “statistic” that Black people are more likely to be involved in crime come from? Are they from the FBI financial crimes unit? College disciplinary boards? Are they police statistics? I suspect the latter. If so, when BLM complains that Black people are consistently and unfairly targeted by the police, you then quote a police statistic that may very well reflect that grievance to prove that they’re deserving of such treatment? The logic is mind-boggling and reveals perfectly the ways in which statistics have been used for such a long time to perpetuate racism. I’m tired of white vultures mansplaining Black “statistics” from their panic bunkers in the suburbs. Also, sex is biological. Gender is a social construct. No one’s arguing to have 37 boxes to mark on birth certificates. And maybe in comparing the “similarities” between the anti-science preoccupations of the right and the left, you should also compare the consequences of denying climate change to the horrific consequences that befall our world when people can choose what bathroom stall to take a dump in. Even more fundamental to your “anti-science” argument, do you care to distinguish between hard science (gasses, elements, etc. and the laws that govern climate science) vs. the social sciences (like statistics, IQ tests, etc.) that are incredibly elastic, always changing, and have a long, long dark history of discrimination? Yes, perhaps you should look into the history of your beloved statistics, on which heap all your faith. They can be useful, sure, but to rely on them to interpret absolutely everything narrow and broad is the tactic of a lazy mind. Good God, I could go on, but I feel like I’ve put more thought into this comment than you did in your post. But I will close in addressing perhaps your most astoundingly naïve assertation: that the Capitol rioters were buffoons not to be taken seriously. You know, everyone said that the orange-hued, raging, racist gameshow clown that was 2016 candidate Trump was a buffoon. Few people took him seriously—including people I know who voted for him—until he’d already won the election and was bragging to hostile nations that his nuclear button was “bigger.” If we have learned one goddamned thing over these four disastrous years, is it not to take buffoons seriously?? After all, that is the only reason I wasted ten minutes of my life reading your blog. It’s easy to “think a lot” when you’re thinking in a vacuum…
As a proud homosexual I'm offended by this article