3 ms·

I think you've read something into the GP that wasn't there. I don't see them justifying or excusing bad practices anywhere in the post. Merely stating that the

I think you've read something into the GP that wasn't there. I don't see them justifying or excusing bad practices anywhere in the post. Merely stating that they occurred (which is true). > The norms were to crack down on that sort of thing when it happened This what the GP is really getting at. This was never cracked down on in the past (I have no clue where you'd get the idea from that it was) because it wasn't done in the open as it is now. Now that it's blatant, we may finally have an opportunity to fight it.

dragonwriter 9y ago
> This what the GP is really getting at. This was never cracked down on in the past (I have no clue where you'd get the idea from that it was) because it wasn't done in the open as it is now. It wasn't done in the open because all kinds of structures, both formal and informal, were erected to crack down on it after the last time it was done so flagrantly in the open; OTOH, those have been systematically eroded over the last several decades so that with the political branches sand judiciary all in the hands of the same faction, they no longer function to restrain it.
WorldMaker 9y ago
Even if the GP wasn't explicitly justifying or excusing bad practices, I was pointing out that this very much is a justification and excuse we see a lot. It's a logical fallacy that has creepily become a dominant force in a lot of politics lately. > This what the GP is really getting at. This was never cracked down on in the past (I have no clue where you'd get the idea from that it was) because it wasn't done in the open as it is now. Now that it's blatant, we may finally have an opportunity to fight it. We have books now on the subject to even talk about it, and having that knowledge open helps to prevent the next one done in secret. That's not a very visceral "crack down", but it has been often considered sufficient, at least in the past, in the cases where the best we can do is post-hoc handling of the situation and further attempts at prevention. Yes, it's easier to fight things in the light, but don't mistake blatant violations for "light". The goal posts for the fight move when it is so blatant; the risks are that normalization happens and "oh well, this terrible thing is how things are done now" becomes true. Blatant acts mean the aggressors get to hold the light and control the narrative of what they point at. "We are doing nothing wrong, see, look at all this not wrong we are doing."

dragonwriter 9y ago

> This what the GP is really getting at. This was never cracked down on in the past (I have no clue where you'd get the idea from that it was) because it wasn't done in the open as it is now. It wasn't done in the open because all kinds of structures, both formal and informal, were erected to crack down on it after the last time it was done so flagrantly in the open; OTOH, those have been systematically eroded over the last several decades so that with the political branches sand judiciary all in the hands of the same faction, they no longer function to restrain it.

WorldMaker 9y ago

Even if the GP wasn't explicitly justifying or excusing bad practices, I was pointing out that this very much is a justification and excuse we see a lot. It's a logical fallacy that has creepily become a dominant force in a lot of politics lately. > This what the GP is really getting at. This was never cracked down on in the past (I have no clue where you'd get the idea from that it was) because it wasn't done in the open as it is now. Now that it's blatant, we may finally have an opportunity to fight it. We have books now on the subject to even talk about it, and having that knowledge open helps to prevent the next one done in secret. That's not a very visceral "crack down", but it has been often considered sufficient, at least in the past, in the cases where the best we can do is post-hoc handling of the situation and further attempts at prevention. Yes, it's easier to fight things in the light, but don't mistake blatant violations for "light". The goal posts for the fight move when it is so blatant; the risks are that normalization happens and "oh well, this terrible thing is how things are done now" becomes true. Blatant acts mean the aggressors get to hold the light and control the narrative of what they point at. "We are doing nothing wrong, see, look at all this not wrong we are doing."