New twist on trusting the science
(media.greatawakening.win)
Comments (30)
sorted by:
It's more like 'Probability' than 'Statistics' - but it gets the point across.
I came here to say this. Maybe a bit pedantic, but still…
Statistics is a branch of math that uses probability, among other things, to analyze, interpret and present data. It’s actually very much prone to picking and choosing data sets and outcomes that support whatever you want it to support.
But the evidence we have is NOT this type of statistics - it’s the purer ingredient of probability, and in some cases (like the voter roles based on 2010 census and places that had 100%+ voter turn out) it’s not even probability, it’s simple equations that state something in the vote counts that cannot be true.
You study probability in statistics class. Or at least I did way back when, lol.
The problem with this forum is people still think they can use logic on liberals. It doesn't matter. They lie and they know it.
The problem with this forum is that people here still think that when you are using logic in an argument with leftists, that you are trying to sway the leftists.
Am I doing it right?
You don't argue senselessly with a leftist to change their opinion. Instead, use the Bongino approach; you are arguing to sway the opinions of those who would watch your arguments from the sidelines.
You can only argue with logic, people who hold their opinions logically...
mafs be raciss tho
q.e.d.
They really don't care about science, they just repeat whatever the perverts on the screens say
These are the people who tweeted that 2+2=4 is white supremacy. They don't have to make sense because they look fierce
What are the details of #2? No one likes him?
Here's the details on #2.
This LA Time article from 2021 gives a list of all the statistics that have been "debunked" by the "fact-checkers".
Column: Debunking Trump’s ‘Big Lie,’ scholars and statistics show the facts don’t add up
— Joe Biden won more votes than Trump even though he carried far fewer counties. (A meaningless statistic. Biden cleaned up in big cities while Trump carried more rural areas and, thus, more counties.)
— Trump won more bellwether counties. (Another meaningless statistic. Bellwethers reflect past performance and don’t determine election outcomes.)
— There was a big difference between votes that were counted early and those that were counted late. (That doesn’t indicate fraud. Republicans were more likely to vote on election day and more Democrats mailed in their ballots. So they were tabulated at different times.)
— Differences between voting patterns in 2016 and 2020 suggest voting irregularities. (Election results aren’t stamped out on an assembly line. Things invariably change from one campaign to the next.)
— More votes were cast in 2020 than there are voters. (It didn’t happen. That falsehood grew out of a faulty analysis that took the turnout rate for eligible voters — those 18 and older — and applied it to the smaller number of registered voters.)
— Machines run by Dominion Voting Systems switched votes from Trump to Biden. (A statistical analysis shows no significant difference in Biden’s performance in counties using Dominion machines compared to those using other means to tabulate their ballots. The software and voting machine company has sued the right-wing propaganda networks Newsmax and One America News, among others, for defamation for widely promoting the misinformation.)
— Fulton County, Georgia, which takes in the Atlanta area, and Allegheny County, home to Pittsburgh, were major centers of fraud involving absentee ballots. (Not so. Grimmer and his colleagues found there was nothing unusual about Biden’s absentee ballot haul in those counties relative to his performance in neighboring counties.)
— Turnout was unusually high in Democratic-leaning counties in a number of important battleground states where massive fraud is alleged. (There was no fraud and no unusual surge in turnout.)
https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2021-08-17/trump-big-lie-experts-debunk-voting-fraud-claims
Archived link - https://archive.ph/uwWgv
So you dispute the provided fact-checks and see these as statistical facts?
So you believe Biden actually won? Have you watched 2000 Mules or Selection Code, or are you just a trolling Redditor?
Also some guy on 4chan analyized the ratios between candidates in the mail-in ballots over time which should remain constant since theyre all shuffled together. But as time went on the ratio moved more in favor of Biden suggesting that they were stuffing the ballot box after they knew how many theyd need
https://votepatternanalysis.substack.com/p/voting-anomalies-2020
This is as close to definitive proof youre going to get w statistical analysis. Theres a ton of other weird shit but it but hard to draw conclusions from it beyond 'this election was weird' whereas this shows deliberate coordination along with quantitative adjustments showing the effects were significant
They really should have provided the "official" explanation to help people make up their own minds. The second comment mentions it, but then leans into "but who knows what really happened".
Definitely some fine autist work, but as you said, close.
Mathematics (statistics) is just a language. It's not "science" in any way, but the language used to describe our models of reality, taken from experimental measure.
This language can be used to create arguments. The arguments, the debate, are the process by which we get closer to the truth.
In the case of the election data, substantial arguments can be made using math to show that it is "impossible" that the election was not fraudulent (sufficient to change the outcome of the election).
The problem isn't that there are no arguments, nor is it the language used for those arguments (math or english e.g.), it is that there is no debate. People aren't "denying" the math, they are ignoring it. None of the evidence gets shown. Counter argument do not address the arguments themselves. Instead they cite something else, they misdirect away from the arguments, or give "doubts" by "expert" statement. These experts are usually just "experts say," without any actual expert at all, but even when there is one, they don't actually address the mathematical arguments.
No one has addressed the arguments directly. Until people look at the arguments, it's just going to go around in circles. People must stop trusting "the experts," thus Covid, Vaccines, and God knows what else is around the corner to break faith in our "experts" and "leaders."
Its a language, you are right there. But is it a language spoken by the universe? The universe doesn't speak english or even serbo-croat, does it speak math or something else such as the supernatural?
Probably. Statistics was invented to give statisticians something to argue about and thereby make a living as it has no answers, only more questions.
It wasnt impossible - thats not how stats works - but highly highly improbable. The analysis is just a red flag that needs to be explored qualitatively. There is a very slight chance that everything was fine but the math says that if you repeated this election ovlver and over (1000s or millions of times) you would only get this result once
That is really good for redpilling normlingtons
Reframing can be good rhetorical tool.
Oh this is good.
the meme should provide a source underneath point 2 or its worthless as a red pilling tool.
If they ask you for a source, point them to 2000 Mules?
u/EatShitCons wrote-
This person believes the vaccines are safe and effective too.
Fuck off groomer.