"A new Reuters/Ipsos poll finds that 55% of Republicans falsely believe Joe Biden's victory in the 2020 presidential election was the result of illegal voting or rigging."

"Additionally, 60% of Republicans incorrectly agree that the election was stolen from Republican Donald Trump." 

CNN reports, aggressively inserting the view that the people who were polled are wrong. I believe that's a very unusual way to report an opinion poll, with insistence that the opinion is wrong and apart from any factual reporting that makes it perfectly obvious that the opinion is mistaken. 

This displays a desperate fear of the opinion, and I don't think it does much good. The urge to stamp the opinion out will tend to make those who hold it grip more tightly: What are they afraid of? Are they trying to get me to move on, telling me there's nothing to see here?

CNN continues:

What is perfectly clear, however, is that Republicans' lack of faith in our current election infrastructure is a direct result of Trump's historic efforts to undermine the legitimacy of the 2020 results.

It's "perfectly clear" why people have this opinion? This is a news article, reporting a poll, and it's making an absolute assertion about why human beings believe what they do. That doesn't inspire confidence. It makes people suspicious, perhaps paranoid. 

FROM THE EMAIL: Cheryl writes: 

“Election infrastructure...” 

Seems like that word is being softened up to mean anything they want it to mean. Wonder why. 

Good catch. I'll boldface the word in the quoted text above. Cheryl's right. There's been a lot of talk lately from Democrats around the word "infrastructure." I was just saying: "It's a propaganda word to the core."

AND: Temujin emails:

The only thing missing from this article was the word 'debunked' as in, these false theories have been clearly debunked. Which, of course, they have not.

The key to this is that the fraud, or at least the appearance of fraud has never been fully examined, investigated, or allowed to be. Even those few court 'appearances' were mostly tossed out of court for 'lack of standing' or due to lack of evidence. Yes, it's hard to obtain evidence when your discovery time is extremely short, and the states have it locked away, or thrown away, or it has simply 'disappeared'.

What we have had, since the surprising closing of the polls late in the evening in 4 key cities, and the more surprising change from a massive Trump lead to a Biden surge taking place while the polls were 'closed' at 1-4 am, is a barrage of media sources, Big Tech, and 'expert' talking heads telling us all how this was clearly a clean election, no fraud, and all questions have been answered, all theories, debunked. I personally will go to my grave not believing that 80 million Americans — more than voted for any previous person in our history- got out and voted for Joe Biden who had spent the previous 18 months locked up in a basement with an occasional outing to mispronounce names or forget where he was.

There are roughly 74 million people in this country walking around right now with a nagging nervousness in their gut, like a wound that will not go away. Too many of us, and I clearly include me in this, strongly suspect a massive foul play — a coup — took place on November 3. We are suspicious of what took place before, during, and certainly after election day. Demanding we believe the networks is hardly the answer to clearing this up.

And the overall complete and total censorship and dismissal of the topic — by Big Tech, the networks, major news outlets, and talking heads — only exacerbates our suspicions. That CNN- the network most famous for promoting the Russia! Russia! Russia! hoax, purposely misquoting Trump on his Charlottesville comments, showcasing preposterous liars with fabulous stories about Justice Kavanaugh, calling flat-out riots destroying our cities 'peaceful protests', and sporting insurrection tears — has a show called "Reality Check" is all you need to know about the USA in 2020, 2021.

That the Reuters/Ipsos poll only shows 55% of Republicans still questioning things shows how much work the media has already done to make this all disappear. That number should be at 80%. It probably is. We know how inaccurate our polls have been over the last few years. Yet we still crank them out — daily.

Owen writes:  

Remarkable behavior by CNN, as you point out. Reminds me of the line, “The louder he spoke of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons.”

And mezzrow says: 

On truth and elections. Here’s a definition of what term 'liberal' means from my favorite reactionary. On these terms, I will always proudly identify as liberal. It’s the only identity politics that has meaning to me.

There exist two interpretations of the popular vote, one democratic, the other liberal. 

According to the democratic interpretation what the majority resolves upon is true; according to the liberal interpretation the majority merely chooses one option. 

A dogmatic and absolutist interpretation, the one; a skeptical and discreet interpretation, the other. – Don Colacho

And Tim writes: 

Somehow, both Hayes and Kennedy avoided going down in history with an asterisk beside their name. I do not think Biden is going to avoid that fate. A big part of both Hayes and Kennedy avoiding that fate was their attempt to reconcile with their foes. But Biden has never been the sharpest pencil in the box.

AND: Bob Boyd writes:

That doesn't inspire confidence. It makes people suspicious, perhaps paranoid. 

I think this kind of thing does inspire confidence in those who choose to believe The Narrative.

CNN knows what it is doing with this stuff. It's not a blunder. It's not poor journalism. It's the new journalism. Their role is not to report facts, it's to report their expert determination of the correct opinion.

There is no factual reporting included because it is not the role of news consumers to determine which opinion is correct and which is mistaken. Facts are for experts to sift through, who will then report their determination of the correct opinion. Wise consumers will adopt that expert opinion. Failure to adopt that opinion is a clear indication of a serious character flaw.

Am I being paranoid?

And Wild Swan writes: 

Believe is kind of a funny word which may make "falsely believing" an impossibility. What would Wittgenstein say? Can I "falsely believe" in the sense that I would be able to say "I falsely believe?"

Wittgenstein said no.. He said: I can believe a falsehood (false belief) but I am not able to carry out an action - "falsely believing" - that means believing and not believing?

Continuing on from him, I say: "Truly believing," as a description of the belief of many Republicans about the 2020 election means "sincerely believing," rather than "correctly believing." Its opposite is not "falsely believing" but "pretending to believe" or hypocrisy.

Go further. Can someone else truly say of me: "She falsely believes?" Is there such a thing as a psychological state which is a false way to believe, as opposed to a false belief. Can you falsely believe CNN or Jen Psaki?

The significance of the question is that a "false belief" implies that there is a truth somewhere whereas "falsely believing" is a nonsense phrase - something a bureaucrat or any other dullard is well able to say about the ciphers they ruin without the phrase ever diverting them into falsely questing for truth.

AND: Dwight writes: 

USA Today has been doing this for months regarding the election... "Trump falsely claims..."

I've been waiting for "Franklin Graham falsely claims there is a God".

*** 

There is no comments section anymore, but you can email me here. Unless you say otherwise, I will presume you'd enjoy an update to this post with a quote from your email.

"I think this is a good dialogue...."

 

Oh, wouldn't you just love to pile into an unmoderated comments section right now? I've abolished the comments section, because the tragedy of the commons was just too damned heart-rending. But I could turn it on for an individual post, just to see what happens. That's an option I've considered and that a few people have mentioned in email. (You can email me here.) 

Why not turn it on for this post? Actually, I considered it, because I think there's a lot in the video to talk about, and I'm not personally in the mood to comment about it, other than to have selected that one quote for the post title. And isn't it interesting that the quote expresses appreciation for "good dialogue"?

But if the comments were open, the beginning of the comments section would be filled with comments from people who hadn't watched the video. And there'd be comments saying things that have already been said about "Saturday Night Live" — that's it's never been funny or hasn't been funny since [whenever]. How long would it take before somebody would say something trenchant about the actual substance of the video?

"I think this is a good dialogue...." is a funny line because the referenced dialogue is not good. And yet we cling to the notion that dialogue is good. I love dialogue. 

Here ends my monologue.

FROM THE EMAIL: Temujin writes: 

I've wondered if you've considered randomly opening up comments at some point for posts only you want to hear comments on. There were one or two in the past couple of days I would have loved to have commented on. But not on this one. You are correct to not open comments on this one. It would be a bloodbath. No one likes a bloodbath in the morning.

Yeah, bloodbath is more of an evening luxury. 

"The boars snooze in people’s paddling pools. They snuffle across the lawns. They kick residents’ soccer balls and play with their dogs.

"They saunter down the sidewalks and sleep in the streets. Some eat from the hands of humans, and they all eat from the trash.... 'It became like an everyday thing,' said Eugene Notkov, 35, a chef who lets his dog play with the boars that putter around the local parks. 'They’re a part of our city'.... Bumping into one is 'like seeing a squirrel.'...'I wish we could all in Israel learn to live like they live in Haifa,' said Edna Gorney, a poet, ecologist and lecturer at the University of Haifa. 'It’s an example of coexistence — not only between Arabs and Jews, but also between humans and wildlife.'... 'They are controlling the streets now,' said Assaf Schechter, 43, a port worker confronted recently by a boar on his porch. 'It’s a very crazy situation.'... 'At night, I would go out, after a drink, and recycle the beer,' Professor Malkinson said. 'It’s two for the price of one — you fertilize the trees and you try to deter the wild boars... Essentially the conflict is between those who oppose having wild boars in the city and those who don’t... It’s not an ecological problem... It’s a social problem.'"

From "Where Boars Hog the Streets Groups of boars have become an unavoidable presence in Haifa/Some human residents are charmed, but others are annoyed or frightened and now carry sticks on walks" (NYT) 

To comment, email me here.

FROM THE EMAIL: Temujin writes: 

I've been told that Haifa is a beautiful, laid back city. Never heard a thing about the boars. Along the Mediterranean and probably in the rest of Israel, and indeed the world, boars are shot, for food or to protect people and crops. Homer told us of Odysseus getting gored by a battle with a boar, leaving him with a lifelong scar. This has been a battle between humans and boars for eons. In Tuscany, boars can destroy vineyards overnight. So...hunting parties go out to kill off boars. And it's served as main entrees on menus all over the world.

But it'll be a problem, if it is not already for Haifa. Feral pigs breed constantly and in huge numbers. Boars are levels more dangerous. Haifa is clearly laid back. And we know from our own experiences here in the US what happens to cities when your policies get too laid back. Things that were on the fringes start to overtake the daily pattern of life. And soon they are no longer a talking point, or cute, or 'quirky'. Just annoying and dangerous and tend to change the face of your city.

Haifa might have to think about how they handle food waste and start featuring Boar steaks, stews, and other features on local menus.

But it's pork! They can't eat it. The Jews can't eat it and the Muslims can't eat it either.

AND: Mike emails:

Well, if you believe Wikipedia (and who doesn't!) the city is 14% Christian. For them, the offer of free pork chops might appeal.

I'm not an expert of the scriptures, but I'm going to guess that the Christians would also have to do all the food prep work.