Facts. We're talking about educating on facts, not fiction or subjection positions.

Which facts? Could you elaborate?

There is no proof of material voting fraud or irregularities, for example. If you believe otherwise, you are fabricating a reality. If you communicate these lies to others, you are contributing to a disinformation campaign.

> There is no proof of material voting fraud or irregularities

And is there proof that there wasn't fraud? Does the burden of proof fall upon them or the government?

Um you can't prove something didn't happen .... when in fact it didn't happen. How is this not common sense. It's not suddenly fraud when the worse president in American history loses an election.

> Um you can't prove something didn't happen .... when in fact it didn't happen.

I think you can, to a certain degree. For example: by making the mail-in system more trustworthy, or by eliminating it.

My country (Chile) only uses on-site voting and no one alleges fraud because we know that it would be incredibly hard to steal an election with this system. The system is transparent, votes are counted publicly the same day of the voting.

The electoral service is one of the few public institutions that I deem competent and actually trust in my country, and I think I'm not alone.

To be honest, now politicians are trying to impose mail-in ballot system, but that not the electoral service's fault. That's idiot politicians trying to ruin something that works.

This idea of massive voter fraud isn't something that had entered the conversation until it was used as an imaginary defense for someone who has been unable to accept any loss or defeat or even apologize for any mistake he has made. (He also used it when he won, of course. But it is a unique construction that has been manifested into being by him.)

This is a man who, in what any normal person, could admit was a mistake when tweeting about a hurricane having effects in Alabama. Instead he doubled down, tripled down, forced federal employees to make statements that he was right. He even drew sharpie on a map to extend the prediction cone because it didn't show what he said.

There is a clear pattern of behavior here.

Additionally, those who are alleging massive voter fraud in public did not make those statements in court, because it would have actual consequences. Every state certified their results, including those with republican leadership.

So you either have to buy in to extraordinary claims of all kinds of (in many cases provably false) of voter fraud and a massive apparatus (Deep State) working against Donald Trump or accept the much more obvious and plain result.

If you listen to the call with Georgia, when the Secretary of State pointed out that they had investigated several of the claims, Trump's response was that the investigators were either incompetent or actively working against him.

It goes beyond the pale.

As always, it falls on the entity making the claims. See Russel’s Teapot for more info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

To me it seems that the real core problem is that people believe in their own imaginary realities that are in disagreement with what's considered to be objective facts (let's keep solipsism aside please), and not the speech (ability to communicate ideas) itself.

I mean... why is it that if someone tells me that Sun rises in the west virtually everyone just ignores this as an obvious nonsense, but when someone says... a more nuanced but nonetheless proven-false controversy (I'd intentionally refrain from any examples - even the ones that were already provided - to avoid even a possibility debating any of those), some don't outright dismiss it.

Maybe I'm a weirdo, and maybe it's simply not possible with humans - but I still hope for a society where (argh, okay, let's invoke Godwin's Law) the next Hitler won't happen not because of some speech laws but because simply no one would listen to the lunacies seriously.

Because otherwise they will try to overturn elections and install one party state.

Or because their opinions leads them to construct bombs or shoot people.

This is a textbook example of a straw man.

How is it strawman? Those are actual real world actions people commited, because of their opinions.

Not even month ago. Ignoring yesterday, there was plan and attempt to execute Mitchigan governor last few months. There was Nashville boombing, likely due to whatever conspiracy theory that man believed.

Even Elliot Rodger had opinions largely from incels chans.

Let me use another scenario. 1969, Brazil. Members of a revolutionary group kidnapped the US Ambassador. After that, and a few other incidents, the government used the same argument you presented to review and approve contents of newspapers, magazines, radio shows, movies and correspondence.

Do you believe it is OK to do this, in order to disrupt their planning? Do you believe it becomes not-OK if the target of domestic terror is a tyrannical government?

The very same situation has happened across all of South America throughout the 20th Century.

[1]: https://www.insidehook.com/article/history/kidnapped-why-an-...

You asked following: "Why do you want to go to great lengths and "educate" people on your point of view?"

The only strawman in this thread is the one made by you in the comment I am responding to now.

How is it a strawman, it literally just happened a few days ago.

They may be referring to the first statement, which in my experience doesn't seem true. I've never heard conservatives, Republicans, or Trump supporters argue for a one party state. That may be my failing, however.

> I've never heard conservatives, Republicans, or Trump supporters argue for a one party state.

Trump praised China for paving the way to make Xi Jinping's presidency permanent

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-trump-china/trump-praises...

> “He’s now president for life, president for life. And he’s great,” Trump said, according to audio of excerpts of Trump’s remarks at a closed-door fundraiser in Florida aired by CNN. “And look, he was able to do that. I think it’s great. Maybe we’ll have to give that a shot someday,” Trump said to cheers and applause from supporters.

Which IMO implies support for a one-party state.

What do you think it means when you lose an election, and then try to disrupt the democratic process with the goal of having the loser of the election retain power?

> "Or because their opinions leads them to construct bombs or shoot people."

Who exactly is "they"? Anyone who disagrees with you? Anyone who votes for a Republican candidate? Trump supporters? Some subset of Trump supporters who say the election was fraudulent? What about Trump supporters who say the election MAY have been fraudulent -- do they also get silenced?

This is a slippery slope. You either have freedom of speech, or you don't. Muzzling people who have ideas you consider dangerous has a way of blowing back in your face; in fact it almost guarantees violence, when people feel they are not allowed to vent.

The people who literally stormed the capital earlier this week, some of whom brought equipment like zipties with the intention of kidnapping/hostage taking. Those specific people who we all literally just saw doing the thing on basically every TV Channel while some of them literally livestreamed themselves doing it. This is in no way ambiguous at all.

Well from my perspective, you're part of the problem. Good day.

Please see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25743160. We ban accounts that get into flamewars like this.

This isn't about perspective. You are the one actually saying lies. Don't try to turn this around into some thing where it just two equal opinions. It is truth vs lies, and you are choosing lies.

(Sorry for the delay but I've been swamped since this conflagration.)

Posts like this and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25691491 and many others you posted in these recent threads are not acceptable on HN, regardless of how wrong someone else is or you feel they are. We ban this sort of account, regardless of which politics they're battling for. Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here.

Please make sure you're not using HN primarily for political battle—it's against the guidelines and it's the line across which we start banning accounts (https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...), again regardless of which politics they're battling for. The reason is that it basically destroys what HN is supposed to exist for, which is curious conversation on a wide range of topics.

They are people who put bomb in RNC and brought one to capitol a day before yeasterday. They includes nashville bomber and whoever organized Mitchigan terrorist plot.

They are also proud boys starting fights. It is not like US would have shortage of organized political violence lately. It is pretty easy to find "they".

Your evidence is quite flimsy.

The Nashville bomber was one guy committing suicide and he even warned in advance.

The Michigan kidnapping plot was about 5-6 idiots who did not represent some kind of farflung organization.

The Proud Boys have not started fights, to my knowledge. They have marched peacefully down the street holding U.S. flags and the like, and been violently attacked by antifa elements. They show up at left wing/antifa demonstrations but don't attack; they fight back when provoked. They've been demonized by left wing news as "white supremacists" ironically even though their leader is a black guy.

So when you say "it is pretty easy to find 'they'", you need to support that statement. It's pretty easy to make stuff up, too, and I believe a lot of people are being censored on the basis of hearsay and madeup nonsense.