I read an excellent book, Rigged, by Mollie Hemingway, that discussed the ways the 2020 election was not held in normal fashion. Sadly, for some reason, the dictates of those who decide them, we are not allowed to believe things occurred that were abnormal (her list is quite good, including attempts by the DNC and lawyer Mark Elias to sue states over election laws they enacted, to Zuckerbucks, which is some states like Wisconsin, actually took over their local election administration. We all know now that the 1960 Kennedy-Nixon election had anomalies, notably in the City of Chicago and West Virginia. Imagine if we were denied the chance to discuss those?
Part of the problem is that a lot of articles start with the premise that something is wrong or provides disinformation, rather than breaking down the specifics of the events and then leading to a natural conclusion. There will always be people who will believe one thing or another even if it is disproved, of course, but the desire to immediately dismiss someone else's concerns as wrong is never a good idea without facts to back it up.
Another problem, I think, is that we have social media conversations that mirror those we might have in-person within intimate relationships. If you tell someone you know and love "You're wrong and you're an idiot," it will come off as far less offensive than saying it to someone on Twitter you've never met. Yet, people feel comfortable and jump on the bandwagon, and soon we find a polarized country that blurs the middle ground where most people reside.
I read an excellent book, Rigged, by Mollie Hemingway, that discussed the ways the 2020 election was not held in normal fashion. Sadly, for some reason, the dictates of those who decide them, we are not allowed to believe things occurred that were abnormal (her list is quite good, including attempts by the DNC and lawyer Mark Elias to sue states over election laws they enacted, to Zuckerbucks, which is some states like Wisconsin, actually took over their local election administration. We all know now that the 1960 Kennedy-Nixon election had anomalies, notably in the City of Chicago and West Virginia. Imagine if we were denied the chance to discuss those?
Part of the problem is that a lot of articles start with the premise that something is wrong or provides disinformation, rather than breaking down the specifics of the events and then leading to a natural conclusion. There will always be people who will believe one thing or another even if it is disproved, of course, but the desire to immediately dismiss someone else's concerns as wrong is never a good idea without facts to back it up.
Another problem, I think, is that we have social media conversations that mirror those we might have in-person within intimate relationships. If you tell someone you know and love "You're wrong and you're an idiot," it will come off as far less offensive than saying it to someone on Twitter you've never met. Yet, people feel comfortable and jump on the bandwagon, and soon we find a polarized country that blurs the middle ground where most people reside.