Thread by @antirobust

hardly worth posting about now, but something that'd be helpful imo for understanding & structuring the thinking of ppl who believe Democrats stole the election (or just did lots of non-decisive fraud) is specifying rough probability estimates for these (super-simplified) options

obv you can do it for center & left media too, & whole exercise is simplistic

idea is just to consider how much you believe that the narratives/rhetoric coming from media actors (& include politicians like Trump) are both 1) sincere & 2) accurately reflective of real evidence

it's obviously conceivable that one's views on election-rigging are pretty uncorrelated with one's views on ideologically/partisan-aligned media & politician trustworthiness & accuracy...

... e.g you can think Trump would be likely to claim a fraudulent election regardless of actual fraudulence & still think it was fraudulent in this specific case

or add complexity to the questions, like considering
p(rightwing media says fraud | Trump says fraud)

but most ppl take cues from sources (incl. politicians, twitter posters etc) that they align with ideologically or culturally;

everyone is shaped by this dynamic to some extent — it's a big part of how we get information & form views on the object-level topics in the first place

it just seems productive & healthy to be able to reflect on the extent to which you believe you are capable of perceiving something like election fraud given different counterfactual true scenarios, & your trust in (and reliance upon) ideologically-aligned information sources

ok that's my politicspoasting for the week & i think the only real electionposting i've done in like a month, cheers everyone

some context to this thread i guess

my actual object-level views on the 2020 election fraud question are significantly more nuanced than my opinions on the sincerity & trustworthiness of Republican politicians & aligned media orgs

https://twitter.com/antirobust/status/1328818568083881984?s=20