What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Hypothetical Example - Ends Justifying The Means 2020 Election (1 Viewer)

Would you be in favor of using these same type of tactics where there is fake social media and decep

  • Absolutely

    Votes: 3 4.7%

  • Probably

    Votes: 2 3.1%

  • On The Fence

    Votes: 2 3.1%

  • Probably Not

    Votes: 4 6.3%

  • Definitely Not

    Votes: 53 82.8%
  • Total voters
    64
Joe Bryant

Joe Bryant

Guide
Staff member
Hypothetical situation. I hope it's hypothetical.

I talked here about this episode of This American Life It's well worth the listen. Thanks to (I think) @krista4 for pointing me to it. It's all good but the Act Two is especially interesting. 

You can read the transcript here. Scroll down to the Act Two part. https://www.thisamericanlife.org/671/transcript

The short version: Matt Osborne in Alabama was strongly opposed to Roy Moore's Senate run. And he created a campaign of fake social media to try and bring down Moore and help Moore's opponent win. He makes no apologies for the tactics. 

It's an excellent dive into "does the end justify the means". 

Here's the question:

Assume these things:

  • You're a voter in the 2020 Presidential Election and your vote matters. Not matters like all votes matter but you know what I mean - you're in a key state where your vote will play a significant part in the outcome of the election.
  • You are inclined to vote for whoever will defeat Donald Trump.
  • You believe there are forces at work in favor of Donald Trump like those deployed by Matt Osborne in Alabama where there is fake social media and deception going on to influence the voters in favor of Donald Trump
Here's the question:

Would you be in favor of using these same type of tactics where there is fake social media and deception going on to influence the voters in favor of the Democratic Candidate?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
No...as much as I want him defeated...Id like it to be because of the facts about him, his positions, his stances, and his behavior.  Not because people convinced others using even more lies and deception.

 
I think a canonical hypothetical is, would you murder infant Adolph Hitler knowing what he would cause when he came to power as an adult? I've never been able to answer that question.

 
Gr00vus said:
I think a canonical hypothetical is, would you murder infant Adolph Hitler knowing what he would cause when he came to power as an adult? I've never been able to answer that question.
Click to expand...
Did Hitler create his times or did his times create Hitler?  In his absence would the void have been filled by something more virulent?  Hard to imagine, but possible.  Absent Hitler what would Stalin have been or done?

I would have a hard time killing a baby.  It would help if the infant was sporting a Hitler mustache, then, maybe.

 
I voted "on the fence." I'm not even that jazzed about any of the Democratic candidates (I greatly like some aspects of many of the candidates, but I don't love the whole package of policies any of them are campaigning around), but I do believe trump is doing some serious long term damage (environmental damage via reckless deregulation and climate change disinformation, economic damage via escalating trade deficit AND federal deficit, foreign relations damage, and much more). So part of me thinks we (the nation - and to some extent the world, not the Democratic party) can't afford to let the Republican party be the only party to use proven effective tactics even if they are dirty as hell. We need an even playing field.

ETA: It's sad, but just finding a way to show the average voter exactly how inept and corrupt trump is should be more damning* than any fake news trump's team could bake up on his potential candidates. Because of this, I don't think it'll be necessary to stoop to their level, but I was trying to answer in the spirit of the hypothetical. 

*Example:
What do you care most about in this presidential race?
Morals, Climate Change, Economy, Etc.
If user clicks "morals" go to "Did you know trump cheated on his wife with a porn star while his wife was pregnant with their child and then used campaign money to pay off the porn star? Did you know trump withheld foreign aid to Ukraine in order to strong-arm Ukraine into investigating a conspiracy theory the US had already debunked? Did you know he misappropriated almost $3MM from a fake fundraiser for veterans? Did you know he ran a fake university?"
If user clicks "climate change" go to "Did you know trump regularly calls climate change a hoax? Did you know that trump removed every climate change related regulation in the US that he could?"
If user clicks "Economy" go to "Did you know trump promised to quickly eliminate the national debt but actually expanded it beyond $1T/year? Did you know the trade deficit increased under trump?"
Etc...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
For the folks voting not, how do you feel about what Osborne is saying here:

Ben Calhoun

Doesn't it feel like, especially in-- you know, during the presidency of Donald Trump, that the norms are only the norms if most people adhere to them, you know? Like--

Matt Osborne

Well, what is the norm here? The norm here is that Democrats are supposed to go high and get kicked in the knees. That's the norm. The norm is that Republicans play dirty and win.

Is that the norm that we're supposed to preserve? Because if that's the norm that we're supposed to preserve, let that norm die, I say. Burn it down. Burn it to the ground.

Ben Calhoun

So the core of what I hear you saying is that you don't think that it's something that you can combat by example and just say, we're going to refuse to win that way.

Matt Osborne

Oh, look at me. I have clean hands and clean clothes, and I'm standing above you in a shining light, and I don't have any power. I can't actually make any changes. But don't I look good? And isn't that the important thing?

[LAUGHS]

Ben Calhoun

It sounds so harsh when you put it that way.

Matt Osborne

[LAUGHS]
Click to expand...

 
Joe Bryant said:
For the folks voting not, how do you feel about what Osborne is saying here:
Click to expand...


I voted definitely not for the reason that @Dickies stated above - disinformation is incredibly harmful to our society. 

So Osborne's complaint falls on deaf ears. Of all the terrible things Trump has done, the most harmful is to destroy facts. I can't support someone doubling down on that - even if he is from my side.

Someone has to stand up for what's right. Even if its a losing cause.

 
Joe Bryant said:
For the folks voting not, how do you feel about what Osborne is saying here:
Click to expand...
I think he is dead wrong.  He mistakes the temporary alignment of power as indicating a permanent state which can only be undone by becoming that which one has previously, and rightly rejected.  It is panic.  It is a lack of faith that one's principles will prevail if given a chance to be fairly evaluated.   I would reject that argument even if it held ten times in a row, but it prevails now only once.  Our current situation is anomaly, not norm, mistaking the two shows a lack of clarity.  

 
whoknew said:
I voted definitely not for the reason that @Dickies stated above - disinformation is incredibly harmful to our society. 

So Osborne's complaint falls on deaf ears. Of all the terrible things Trump has done, the most harmful is to destroy facts. I can't support someone doubling down on that - even if he is from my side.

Someone has to stand up for what's right. Even if its a losing cause.
Click to expand...
I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here.

What do you say to the guy that says, "Awesome. You keep on that moral high horse and we'll keep destroying your side at the polls every year. Hang on to that superiority as it'll be all you have as we're in control of everything. Thanks for handing that over because you didn't have the stomach to fight to win?"

Again, I'm NOT saying this. I'm asking how you'd (or anyone else) would respond to someone like Osborne who seems to be saying it. 

 
Joe Bryant said:
I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here.

What do you say to the guy that says, "Awesome. You keep on that moral high horse and we'll keep destroying your side at the polls every year. Hang on to that superiority as it'll be all you have as we're in control of everything. Thanks for handing that over because you didn't have the stomach to fight to win?"

Again, I'm NOT saying this. I'm asking how you'd (or anyone else) would respond to someone like Osborne who seems to be saying it. 
Click to expand...
I would say that power corrupts, but so too the lust for power over principle.

 
Joe Bryant said:
I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here.

What do you say to the guy that says, "Awesome. You keep on that moral high horse and we'll keep destroying your side at the polls every year. Hang on to that superiority as it'll be all you have as we're in control of everything. Thanks for handing that over because you didn't have the stomach to fight to win?"

Again, I'm NOT saying this. I'm asking how you'd (or anyone else) would respond to someone like Osborne who seems to be saying it. 
Click to expand...
I have said it already. You will reap what you sow.

I believe this is the crossroads we are currently at. We, meaning the American public, can either demand that both parties climb on the moral high horse, or we all are going to suffer in the very near future. This isn't a race to the bottom. 

 
Joe Bryant said:
I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here.

What do you say to the guy that says, "Awesome. You keep on that moral high horse and we'll keep destroying your side at the polls every year. Hang on to that superiority as it'll be all you have as we're in control of everything. Thanks for handing that over because you didn't have the stomach to fight to win?"

Again, I'm NOT saying this. I'm asking how you'd (or anyone else) would respond to someone like Osborne who seems to be saying it. 
Click to expand...


I understand its not you. 

And my response would the same. 

If I take the disinformation step, I may win. But a couple of things will happen:

1) I've convinced a group of people to believe in a lie. That in itself is harmful.

2) I've made it more difficult to distinguish between the truth and a lie. That is incredibly harmful.

3) And finally, I've made it easier for the next guy to spread his disinformation. And down that slope we go until nobody has any idea what is truth and what is a lie.

None of that justifies the ends. So if Osborne wants to feel good about beating me in an election while destroying the US from the inside - that's his choice. I have to be able to sleep at night and look myself in the mirror.

And as @Ditkaless Wonders wrote above, there's no guarantee his lack of morality is always going to prevail at the ballot box.

 
Are you guys surprised at how lightly NPR / This American Life treated this? I was. I need to listen again, but it seemed very much "Well isn't that interesting?" angle. Almost encouraging in a "little engine that could" type way as they seemed impressed they were able to so quickly assemble a team and deploy the ads so quickly. They seemed especially interested in how Osborne's team was able to get actors with just the right accent to sound believable. It was pretty amazing. 

Had you heard about this before now? I had not until recently. 

 
whoknew said:
I voted definitely not for the reason that @Dickies stated above - disinformation is incredibly harmful to our society. 

So Osborne's complaint falls on deaf ears. Of all the terrible things Trump has done, the most harmful is to destroy facts. I can't support someone doubling down on that - even if he is from my side.

Someone has to stand up for what's right. Even if its a losing cause.
Click to expand...
As the lone on the fence" vote so far, I'm feeling a bit devils advocate-y... sure, disinformation is harmful, but by choosing to take the high ground you are unable to make any meaningful impact and thus, not only is the disinformation still present (as fabricated by your opponent) but your opponent is still in power, doing other harmful stuff. I think, hypothetically, it might be worth it to stoop to their level, win, and then put forth some legislation so that neither side can do it again. (again, realistically, I don't think stooping to their level will be necessary)

 
Joe Bryant said:
What do you say to the guy that says, "Awesome. You keep on that moral high horse and we'll keep destroying your side at the polls every year. Hang on to that superiority as it'll be all you have as we're in control of everything. Thanks for handing that over because you didn't have the stomach to fight to win?"
Click to expand...
It makes me sick.  I can see why people would want to stoop to the same tactics, because I have had to repress my own instincts to support this, but ultimately I am against it.  I'm hopeful that facts and real information will eventually win the day and that those responsible for unethical behavior will be punished politically.  It's obvious to me at this moment in time that one side of the political spectrum is far more likely to employ these tactics, and their behavior is going to make is very difficult for me to ever vote for them again (local, state, or federal).  I'm optimistic more people will continue to see this, and hopefully I can recognize it if the other side stoops to the same tactics.

The Garland situation seems like a prime example.  I would not support the Dems pulling the same thing in the future even if it meant a strongly conservative bench for the majority of my remaining life.

 
Honestly, it really doesn't matter to me.  This sort of astroturfing, while perhaps effective in some cases, is less troublesome than the "solution" to it, which to me constitutes a form of censorship.  I don't like how we've been shoved into this technocratic bureaucracy where giant Silicon Valley firms are expected to 'protect us' from fake tweets on the internet.  I don't like the idea of Saudi or Israeli internet troll farms pushing their narratives on Twitter, just like I didn't like Hillary/David Brock's Correct The Record internet trolls in 2016.  But I'd rather they be allowed to do their thing than handing control of these massive platforms to Big Tech, Governments, and Military interests.  

The sad part is these tech people didn't even ask for any of this, Congress made a big hairy deal of 'russian bots' and 'fake news' and now we have arbitrary deplatforming of honest, goodfaith pages.  Pages that support Palestinian liberation, pages that oppose police abuse, antiwar pages.  It's always the subversive outlets with no currency among mainstream opinionmakers that are the first to get whacked.  

Furthermore, I don't like the insinuations about the 2016 election, that Trump was helped in some way by those oblique IRA memes that were only tangentially related to the election.  There is no evidence that any of that flipped a vote.  It's insulting to voters, it implies they weren't thinking for themselves when they voted for Trump.  It's just a sort of alarmism that will lead to further and further censorship of the internet.  

To answer your question, I'm opposed to political campaigns engaging in this sort of deceptive behavior.  But I'd rather allow it than deal with the political "solution" to the "problem".  It's a moral panic just begging for entrenched power to control the flow of information.  

 
whoknew said:
I understand its not you. 

And my response would the same. 

If I take the disinformation step, I may win. But a couple of things will happen:

1) I've convinced a group of people to believe in a lie. That in itself is harmful.

2) I've made it more difficult to distinguish between the truth and a lie. That is incredibly harmful.

3) And finally, I've made it easier for the next guy to spread his disinformation. And down that slope we go until nobody has any idea what is truth and what is a lie.
Click to expand...
In regards to the bold, we are already there with a significant portion of the population.  

 
FF Ninja said:
As the lone on the fence" vote so far, I'm feeling a bit devils advocate-y... sure, disinformation is harmful, but by choosing to take the high ground you are unable to make any meaningful impact and thus, not only is the disinformation still present (as fabricated by your opponent) but your opponent is still in power, doing other harmful stuff. I think, hypothetically, it might be worth it to stoop to their level, win, and then put forth some legislation so that neither side can do it again. (again, realistically, I don't think stooping to their level will be necessary)
Click to expand...
Presenting facts is a good way to make a meaningful impact.

 
The real problem isnt going to be if the Democrats do this, they are incapable of being organized and united at the best of times. Where it gets interesting/dangerous is if someone with more political nous and a more balanced personality than Trump employs the same tactics, but better. Trump is the master of ad hoc and deflection. He has no organisation or leadership skills though .

Trump has created a nasty blueprint though for probably the Republicans, but even the right Democrat to absolutely abuse the current system and if you think Trumps headless chicken approach is a threat to democracy, the path is there for so much worse to happen.

 
FF Ninja said:
As the lone on the fence" vote so far, I'm feeling a bit devils advocate-y... sure, disinformation is harmful, but by choosing to take the high ground you are unable to make any meaningful impact and thus, not only is the disinformation still present (as fabricated by your opponent) but your opponent is still in power, doing other harmful stuff. I think, hypothetically, it might be worth it to stoop to their level, win, and then put forth some legislation so that neither side can do it again. (again, realistically, I don't think stooping to their level will be necessary)
Click to expand...
It's a pretty fascinating question. 

 
FF Ninja said:
Yep and interesting podcast. Almost done listening to it now. Will have to read Act 2 tomorrow.
Click to expand...
I think Ira Glass is one of the most talented people in the business. This American Life consistently is great. 

The conspiracy theory stuff about St. Louis was great too. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joe Bryant said:
The conspiracy theory stuff about St. Louis was great too. 
Click to expand...
I'm listening at work while multi-tasking so maybe I'm missing something, but I felt like the STL stuff was more just hateful/spiteful people (very possibly within the police) acting out rather than some well organized conspiracy to kill those people off as some sort of long play beyond hate. Did I miss something?

 
Joe Bryant said:
I think Ira Glass is one of the most talented people in the business. This American Life consistently is great. 

The conspiracy theory stuff about St. Louis was great too. 
Click to expand...
I love This American Life. I don't remember this episode but will listen to it in the next day or so.

Also - not to distract from the topic - but saw this show a couple of years ago. It was fantastic. If you ever have a chance to see it, I HIGHLY recommend.

 
FF Ninja said:
I'm listening at work while multi-tasking so maybe I'm missing something, but I felt like the STL stuff was more just hateful/spiteful people (very possibly within the police) acting out rather than some well organized conspiracy to kill those people off as some sort of long play beyond hate. Did I miss something?
Click to expand...
I think it was a good and balanced look at connecting the dots. And how sometimes that gets forced. I also thought it was interesting how people on the same "side" had different opinions. There were the folks that said black activists being targeted. And then the music guy saying that calling it targeted was disrespecting the reality of the situation of how tough it is for everyone. I thought it was well done.

 
Joe Bryant said:
I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here.

What do you say to the guy that says, "Awesome. You keep on that moral high horse and we'll keep destroying your side at the polls every year. Hang on to that superiority as it'll be all you have as we're in control of everything. Thanks for handing that over because you didn't have the stomach to fight to win?"

Again, I'm NOT saying this. I'm asking how you'd (or anyone else) would respond to someone like Osborne who seems to be saying it. 
Click to expand...
I think it's a false dichotomy. There are ways to counter that don't involve engaging in disinformation, etc. I'm sure they're out there already in one form or another, but we should be seeing more "truthbots" that are semi-autonomously scanning feeds for disinformation and automatically posting factual refutations in real time. We need more stuff like that. I think also, people need to figure out how to more succinctly and convincingly correlate fanciful thinking/distortion of facts with likely and/or actual negative consequences, stated at a personal level. The vague notion of climate change doesn't lend itself directly to personal impacts. People need to do a better job of correlating climate change denial with negative personal outcomes - e.g. for a person in the southwest U.S. it will probably mean increased energy and water costs, increased food prices, etc. 

Anyway, I think there are multiple responses to disinformation available besides engaging in retaliatory disinformation.

 
Gr00vus said:
I think a canonical hypothetical is, would you murder infant Adolph Hitler knowing what he would cause when he came to power as an adult? I've never been able to answer that question.
Click to expand...
Or, you know, Kant (deontological though) v. utilitarian thought. 

 
Joe Bryant said:
I think it was a good and balanced look at connecting the dots. And how sometimes that gets forced. I also thought it was interesting how people on the same "side" had different opinions. There were the folks that said black activists being targeted. And then the music guy saying that calling it targeted was disrespecting the reality of the situation of how tough it is for everyone. I thought it was well done.
Click to expand...
Just finished act 1 and all of act 2 this morning. Matt makes an interesting point that nothing will happen until both sides get sick of it. I'm not sure that's true - don't you think if the Senate flips blue (a bit of a long shot, but it could happen) and the House remains blue that the Democrats could craft some laws against this without Republican support? Hell, we might finally be able to pass some laws against foreign election interference, too, if McConnell can't block it.

 
I am sure this is explained, but i admit i am too lazy to read up on this one, but does he mean fake accounts or actual fake content? 

Fake accounts i dont really care. Content i do. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ditkaless Wonders said:
Did Hitler create his times or did his times create Hitler?  In his absence would the void have been filled by something more virulent?  Hard to imagine, but possible.  Absent Hitler what would Stalin have been or done?

I would have a hard time killing a baby.  It would help if the infant was sporting a Hitler mustache, then, maybe.
Click to expand...
Murder, no

Kidnap and bring to 21st century America? :oldunsure:

 
parasaurolophus said:
I am sure this is explained, but i admit i am too lazy to read up on this one, but does he mean fake accounts or actual fake content? 

Fake accounts i dont really care. Content i do. 
Click to expand...


You should listen and see what you think. It's fascinating. 

It's definitely fake accounts. The content isn't exactly fake but it's more creating division posing as people they're not. 

 
Joe Bryant said:
You should listen and see what you think. It's fascinating. 

It's definitely fake accounts. The content isn't exactly fake but it's more creating division posing as people they're not. 
Click to expand...
Compare for a moment this idea and the idea of attack ads. Some politicians I’m sure have said “no, I’m running on my policies, not a smear campaign.” However, smear campaigns have proven effective and are used all the time. I’m sure many people have lost due to smear campaigns. They are common practice now (perhaps always have been and I’m naive.) Will meme armies become the norm in the future? 

Take Roy Moore- you could argue that he lost due to a smear campaign. You may also think that it was deserved due to the nature of the allegations. You may think that he’s awful and doesn’t deserve to be in office, and if it’s bogus social media profiles that bring him down so be it. But why stop there- he’s despicable (allegedly) but there’s no prerequisite that he must be, so it gets weaponized against every republican/democrat.  

Personally I think we need to vette our politicians better so we don’t need to dive into some “grey area” to defend ourselves against them.

 
parasaurolophus said:
I am sure this is explained, but i admit i am too lazy to read up on this one, but does he mean fake accounts or actual fake content? 

Fake accounts i dont really care. Content i do. 
Click to expand...
Fake accounts. Semi-fake content. A lot of Moore's support comes from Baptists which make up either 40% of Alabama or 40% of Alabama's Christians (can't recall). Either way, they're a large contingent. So, if I heard it right, these guys created a couple facebook groups promoting Moore AND making Alabama dry (they already have some dry counties) in order to turn off moderate Republicans (who like to drink at some level) from Moore. 

Choke said:
No way. That path is pure evil imo.
Click to expand...
See above. It isn't above board, but I certainly wouldn't qualify it as pure evil. And you know, politics aside, I'm ok with fighting a little dirty to get a pedophile out of a position of power. 

 
Joe Bryant said:
For the folks voting not, how do you feel about what Osborne is saying here:
Click to expand...
Osborne is just a different flavor of Trump.  He can't stand the thought of losing elections and possibly not getting his way on policy issues, so he resorts to hooliganism to help his team win.  It's very easy for most of us to condemn this sort of thing, which is why the poll result is so lopsided.

A more interesting hypothetical would involve higher stakes than electing a member of the Outgroup to the senate, which is pretty inconsequential.  That's why people like considering things like the killing-baby-Hitler problem.  If you can demonstrate that ends justify the means in an extreme situation like that, then you've successfully shown that yes, sometimes the ends really do justify the means, and then the discussion shifts to how to distinguish those sorts of situations from the one in Alabama.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Joe Bryant
Election Deniers Are Bad, Right?
20 21 22
Replies
1K
Views
29K
knowledge dropper
knowledge dropper
dozer
****Official DOJ Investigation into Trump, Fake Electors, Fraud, Etc.****
5 6 7
Replies
348
Views
11K
Sabertooth
Sabertooth
A
Republican Officials In New Mexico County Refuse To Certify Election Results
2
Replies
61
Views
1K
roadkill1292
roadkill1292

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top