3 ms·

> That people can equate breaking the rules using a personal email server with recorded audio of a candidate condoning and admitting sexual assault. I think mo

by ethbro 10y ago

> That people can equate breaking the rules using a personal email server with recorded audio of a candidate condoning and admitting sexual assault. I think most Trump supporters saw a pattern of behavior in Clinton that they trusted even less than Trump's gaffes. Not so much that they condoned sexual assault, but they'd rather the devil who speaks clearly than the devil who seems to have a secret in every closet.

kbenson 10y ago
> but they'd rather the devil who speaks clearly than the devil who seems to have a secret in every closet. I understand that sentiment, but I never took Trump as one who spoke clearly. He spoke simply, but not clearly. I think Clinton was actually the clearer speaker by far, with her specific proposals and plans, but she didn't speak simply (and for what it's worth, I'm not sure we should optimize for candidates that speak simply over clearly, as I've covered elsewhere in these comments).
- ethbro 10y ago
  There's clarity in simplicity, in the same way that a 900 page TOS is not as clear as a 2 page TOS regardless of how precise the former's language is. Whether or not you trust and believe Trump is a different matter.
  - kbenson 10y ago
    There can be clarity in simplicity, but it's not ensured. It's easily possible to simplify to the point where clarity is lost. The canonical example here is "I will replace it with something great". That's very simple, but also not clear at all. That is, while it's clear what he wants to do, it's not clear at all what he plans to do, because that information has been removed in the name of simplicity (assuming it ever existed).
    - ethbro 10y ago
      Granted, but I would argue the counter-example is true too: that clarity can be lessened by adding complexity. And I would argue that's currently a bigger problem in our society (particular with matters legal and political) than the one you outlined. I feel there has to be a formula that defines how many people stop reading for each additional word you add to an informative document. If you have written a 20,000 word document every time you're asked "Do you support the war in Iraq?" then I'm going to call bullshit. Holding people accountable for their promises by a democratic electorate is impossible for promises over a certain level of complexity -- the voting mass simply doesn't have the time. And proxying personal research to biased, for-profit news organizations seems to be another feature that's gotten us into this mess.

by ethbro 10y ago

kbenson 10y ago

> but they'd rather the devil who speaks clearly than the devil who seems to have a secret in every closet. I understand that sentiment, but I never took Trump as one who spoke clearly. He spoke simply, but not clearly. I think Clinton was actually the clearer speaker by far, with her specific proposals and plans, but she didn't speak simply (and for what it's worth, I'm not sure we should optimize for candidates that speak simply over clearly, as I've covered elsewhere in these comments).

ethbro 10y ago
There's clarity in simplicity, in the same way that a 900 page TOS is not as clear as a 2 page TOS regardless of how precise the former's language is. Whether or not you trust and believe Trump is a different matter.
- kbenson 10y ago
  There can be clarity in simplicity, but it's not ensured. It's easily possible to simplify to the point where clarity is lost. The canonical example here is "I will replace it with something great". That's very simple, but also not clear at all. That is, while it's clear what he wants to do, it's not clear at all what he plans to do, because that information has been removed in the name of simplicity (assuming it ever existed).
  - ethbro 10y ago
    Granted, but I would argue the counter-example is true too: that clarity can be lessened by adding complexity. And I would argue that's currently a bigger problem in our society (particular with matters legal and political) than the one you outlined. I feel there has to be a formula that defines how many people stop reading for each additional word you add to an informative document. If you have written a 20,000 word document every time you're asked "Do you support the war in Iraq?" then I'm going to call bullshit. Holding people accountable for their promises by a democratic electorate is impossible for promises over a certain level of complexity -- the voting mass simply doesn't have the time. And proxying personal research to biased, for-profit news organizations seems to be another feature that's gotten us into this mess.