3 ms·

It is intellectually lazy to call the decisions of people you disagree with "stupid" instead of trying to understand how their priorities and principles may be

It is intellectually lazy to call the decisions of people you disagree with "stupid" instead of trying to understand how their priorities and principles may be different than yours.

jessaustin 10y ago
There is no defensible set of priorities and principles by which invading Iraq can be supported as not "stupid", other than perhaps, "It is our priority for the Pentagon to spend more money." (not sure if that's really defensible though...) That wasn't the most annoying thing about GWB, however. Even though that invasion was misguided, it was misguided in a particular way that reflects a particular flawed mindset, which wouldn't surprise observant voters. The most annoying thing was that he waited until the end of his term to shit the bed in completely different fashion, with the "bailouts". I can understand a President who is owned by the military-industrial complex. I can understand a President who is owned by the two or three most influential investment banks. A President who is owned by both of those, however, has no ethical core whatsoever, and he will be cursed by all when the "Even Greater Recession" rolls around and is easily attributed to his abdication of leadership to the cronies.
- kobeya 10y ago
  > There is no defensible set of priorities and principles by which invading Iraq can be supported as not "stupid" I like how the word "defensible" here makes this entire claim take on subjective meaning instead of being readily testable. It is quite easy to find a set of priorities, principles, and (I would add) core values that makes GWB's actions make perfect sense in the context of the time and without hindsight bias. But whether such a position is "defensible" is up to your own prejudices.
  - jessaustin 10y ago
    Thanks; glad you like it! I've already offered the example of, "It is our priority for the Pentagon to spend more money." If it's "quite easy" to come up with a more defensible priority or principle, why don't you give it a try? If I had to come up with something to support both of the disastrous decisions that bookended his administration, it might be something like, "Listen credulously to the self-interested crooks that Dad told me to hire," but I'm sure you can do better than that!
    - kobeya 10y ago
      I have no interest in engaging in political conversation where not all participants are interested in having their mind changed.
      - jessaustin 10y ago
        I don't believe that; it's a roundabout way of saying that you have no interest in political conversation at all. Yet here you are.
res0nat0r 10y ago
Frankly "stupid" is putting it lightly. Read Bush by Jean Edward Smith which just came out a few months ago. > Rarely in the history of the United States has the nation been so ill-served as during the presidency of George W. Bush. His closing statement since I don't have the quote handy is basically invading Iraq was the single worst foreign policy decision in the history of the United States. I think it is safe to say Bush made many stupid decisions, but that is what happens when you rely on ideology moreso than facts. http://a.co/eyCit1B http://a.co/eyCit1B

It is intellectually lazy to call the decisions of people you disagree with "stupid" instead of trying to understand how their priorities and principles may be different than yours.

jessaustin 10y ago

There is no defensible set of priorities and principles by which invading Iraq can be supported as not "stupid", other than perhaps, "It is our priority for the Pentagon to spend more money." (not sure if that's really defensible though...) That wasn't the most annoying thing about GWB, however. Even though that invasion was misguided, it was misguided in a particular way that reflects a particular flawed mindset, which wouldn't surprise observant voters. The most annoying thing was that he waited until the end of his term to shit the bed in completely different fashion, with the "bailouts". I can understand a President who is owned by the military-industrial complex. I can understand a President who is owned by the two or three most influential investment banks. A President who is owned by both of those, however, has no ethical core whatsoever, and he will be cursed by all when the "Even Greater Recession" rolls around and is easily attributed to his abdication of leadership to the cronies.

kobeya 10y ago
> There is no defensible set of priorities and principles by which invading Iraq can be supported as not "stupid" I like how the word "defensible" here makes this entire claim take on subjective meaning instead of being readily testable. It is quite easy to find a set of priorities, principles, and (I would add) core values that makes GWB's actions make perfect sense in the context of the time and without hindsight bias. But whether such a position is "defensible" is up to your own prejudices.
- jessaustin 10y ago
  Thanks; glad you like it! I've already offered the example of, "It is our priority for the Pentagon to spend more money." If it's "quite easy" to come up with a more defensible priority or principle, why don't you give it a try? If I had to come up with something to support both of the disastrous decisions that bookended his administration, it might be something like, "Listen credulously to the self-interested crooks that Dad told me to hire," but I'm sure you can do better than that!
  - kobeya 10y ago
    I have no interest in engaging in political conversation where not all participants are interested in having their mind changed.
    - jessaustin 10y ago
      I don't believe that; it's a roundabout way of saying that you have no interest in political conversation at all. Yet here you are.

res0nat0r 10y ago

Frankly "stupid" is putting it lightly. Read Bush by Jean Edward Smith which just came out a few months ago. > Rarely in the history of the United States has the nation been so ill-served as during the presidency of George W. Bush. His closing statement since I don't have the quote handy is basically invading Iraq was the single worst foreign policy decision in the history of the United States. I think it is safe to say Bush made many stupid decisions, but that is what happens when you rely on ideology moreso than facts. http://a.co/eyCit1B http://a.co/eyCit1B