Agnostic.com

6 6

Sam Harris experiences an epiphany.

https://samharris.org/podcasts/230-insurrection-lies/?utm_source=Sam+Harris+Newsletter&utm_campaign=83d8ebd826-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_03_28_12_51_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_f1c2a2c9db-83d8ebd826-207886465&mc_cid=83d8ebd826&mc_eid=02d51ff309

PBuck0145 7 Jan 11
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

6 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

3

Good podcast. The Sam Harris perspective is always worth a listen. Thanks for sharing.

3

I've never disagreed with Harris this much.
"I didn't see any bending the knee by the cops."
What the fuck are you taking about, Sam, you just said they were taking selfies with the insurrectionists TWICE during this podcast. Kneeling to show solidarity is magically different than posing for pictures to show solidarity? Where's the intellectual honesty?
Sam's confusing the CORRECT claims that if black people were storming the Capitol it would have been different with anecdotal incidents that seem to contradict it. The really confusing part, is that he detailed what the difference was: there wasn't enough police presence for them to behave how they should have, i.e. shooting the fuck out of the terrorists. The connection he failed to make, however, is that if the planned riot (and yes, it was planned and their intel told them this) was going to be comprised of black people, there WOULD have been an appropriate police presence, just like there was on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. One if the reasons was that the racist president tried to stop more forces from fortifying the Capitol. But the fact that they weren't already there shows there had to be others that just didn't view white people as much of a threat... It is a shame that a man as smart as Harris would need this explained to him by a man so far his intellectual inferior like me.

A secure, transparent, unhackable election process is completely possible and actually easy, and everyone knows it. We transfer trillions of dollars via phones and other personal electronics every single day with multi-level biosecurity and encryption. We could have a voting system in place that met all those conditions in no time. The problem is that it drastically increases access to voting, and Republicans don't want that, and I think it was egregious omission by Harris not to mention this during his plea. Trump even admitted it saying, "They had things, levels of voting that if you’d ever agreed to it, you’d never have a Republican elected in this country again".
Reuters also reported, "As Trump pushes baseless fraud claims, Republicans pledge tougher voting rules"
[reuters.com]

You're better than this, Sam.

Return to paper ballots and in-person voting. "Smart" systems are too easy to hack and manipulate.

@PBuck0145 That is nonsense and you know it. If they used the same level of security or better as banking apps they would be infinitely more secure than paper ballots and octogenarians checking IDs. Really, you trust your money to apps on your phone but not your ballot? I literally have access to every penny from every account including my stock and crypto investments (as do probably most other people) with not a single worry because of the insane amount of multi-level security. The ONLY reason someone would say it's a bad idea is because they want to disenfranchise certain voters.

@JeffMurray And you said that my statement was nonsense!. 🙂🙂🙂

@PBuck0145 Too proud to admit you're wrong, it's cool, we know.

@JeffMurray Pot vs kettle. Explain how to audit and double-check "smart" voting systems convincingly and with absolute certainty.

@PBuck0145 The programming would do it for you. Just like a bank doesn't have to guess how much money each person has in their account or how many people have a checking and how many people have a savings account, it would be real-time counts of votes from verified, registered voters. The code could be verified by anyone of any party (provided they understood code) to make sure it was legit. It would be as absolute as the number of dollars in your account. Are you really confused by this notion? No ripped, damaged, or lost ballots. No dimpled or hanging chad. No double voting, no dead people voting, no unregistered people voting. Almost all of the things Republicans claim they want. I guess the downside for Republicans is that it won't suppress the vote of poor people and African Americans, which would be the actual reason they'll oppose this.

@JeffMurray Having worked for four decades in the field of "intelligent" electronics, I have little confidence in the veracity of your statements. Explain to me the technical intricacies of the verification processes. Vague, blanket statements are not sufficient.
Admittedly, a voting system based on blockchain might be acceptable, but currently would require unacceptably extravagant and expensive physical and energy resources.

1

Hard for me to follow Sam on this one.

0

about time

1

How so?

1

Always got time for Sam.

Mvtt Level 7 Jan 11, 2021
Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:568088
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.