One advantage of vagueness, at least if your audience is sufficiently inclined to believe already, is that you can’t *decisively* refute a claim that isn’t concrete enough to meaningfully test. politico.com/news/magazine/…
If you say “they used X software to change such-and-such many votes in Michigan” that’s a reasonably testable claim. We can in principle prove it false. If you just vaguely assert that there was fraud, without specifying a mechanism, we can say “there’s no evidence of that”...
...but it’s so nebulous it’s less succeptible to decisive refutation. There’s always escape hatches: “Ok, you ruled out 5 ways fraud might happen, but maybe it worked some other way, or in another state...”
Maybe in theory you can eventually rule out every plausible mechanism in every state, but now your refutation is a 50 page treatise, and who has time for that?
This strategy isn’t going to CONVINCE anyone there was fraud who actually requires evidence. But that’s not the point. The point is to sustain PERMISSION to believe for those who want to believe.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
