Could you explain how my approach is black and white? I'm stating that institutions weigh the tradeoffs, which is a pretty neutral statement. I know people that

Could you explain how my approach is black and white? I'm stating that institutions weigh the tradeoffs, which is a pretty neutral statement. I know people that hated Trump but voted for him anyway because they had huge reservations about Clinton, they wanted to make the most of a Republican majority in the House and Senate, etc. These decisions depended on their own values and their projections of what the future would hold. To continue the Uber example, it may have been in Uber's best financial short-term interest to keep "high productivity" devs around, regardless of harassment issues. But it might not be in their best interest in the long-term because of issues of toxic company culture or fear public outcry. Some would also argue that there is a moral responsibility in play as well. These factors are all being weighed by institutions and the outcome seems to depend on the collective values of that group. That said, the poll cited above shows that the majority of his supporters don't even believe in the allegations. The ability of people to choose to disbelieve things based on what benefits your institution is supremely disturbing. It's nothing new in the history of humanity. But I'm worried more people will be emboldened to use conspiracy defenses in the future, given how well it seems to be working for Moore.