3 ms·

There's a lot of common sentiment around politicians that goes something like "It doesn't matter if they got the details wrong, what matters is that they're ess

There's a lot of common sentiment around politicians that goes something like "It doesn't matter if they got the details wrong, what matters is that they're essentially correct because they see the Big Picture" We see this here, with fans of Warren saying getting things wrong is irrelevant, because we all know FANG is too powerful and she says it. Thus, quibbling over details is nitpicky pedantry. This tactic is also used by Trump fans, who keep telling us we must "take him seriously, but not literally", where any random nonsense he says is re-interpreted to hint at a larger truth. In this world, Birtherism for example, has absolutely nothing to do with racism and we shouldn't be so nitpicky, because it hints at the larger truth that Obama's life-arch is very different from that of the average American, and they are thus correct to feel that he is more "foreign". Whoever you support, you should not let your guy/gal off the hook like this. Once you start, there's no feedback mechanism to hold you back, you can justify any nonsense using only bits of clever rhethric.

jtr1 8y ago
This smacks a little too much of "both-sidesism." The substantive difference between the two is that Warren will hire a cabinet of seasoned policy specialists who have the bandwidth to write accurate distinctions into law, while there was never any corollary action for Trump because birtherism was never going to be translated into policy; it was a play to prejudice.
- martythemaniak 8y ago
  It is actually the exact opposite of both-siderism, because I'd like people to hold Democrats to a far higher and tougher standard than Republicans. But also, it applies to politics in other countries, it is not strictly an American R/D thing. Also, you should go back to 2015/2016 and read the things said about Trump at the time. The idea that he'd hire a cabinet full of super competent people to run everything while he connects with people and sees the larger truth was very popular. Scott Adams is one of the people who took this line very seriously that I specifically remember.
- zaphar 8y ago
  Yes she will undoubtedly hire seasoned specialists to write her policy into law for her. But will she be looking for people who are on board with her framework or will she be looking for people who will challenge her framework and change her mind on some things. It's worth asking which of those it will be because that is what determines how effective her efforts will be. It's not certain in my mind which one she'll do and as written her proposal does fail to account for some of the causes of the current crop of large scale goliaths in tech.

jtr1 8y ago

This smacks a little too much of "both-sidesism." The substantive difference between the two is that Warren will hire a cabinet of seasoned policy specialists who have the bandwidth to write accurate distinctions into law, while there was never any corollary action for Trump because birtherism was never going to be translated into policy; it was a play to prejudice.

martythemaniak 8y ago
It is actually the exact opposite of both-siderism, because I'd like people to hold Democrats to a far higher and tougher standard than Republicans. But also, it applies to politics in other countries, it is not strictly an American R/D thing. Also, you should go back to 2015/2016 and read the things said about Trump at the time. The idea that he'd hire a cabinet full of super competent people to run everything while he connects with people and sees the larger truth was very popular. Scott Adams is one of the people who took this line very seriously that I specifically remember.
zaphar 8y ago
Yes she will undoubtedly hire seasoned specialists to write her policy into law for her. But will she be looking for people who are on board with her framework or will she be looking for people who will challenge her framework and change her mind on some things. It's worth asking which of those it will be because that is what determines how effective her efforts will be. It's not certain in my mind which one she'll do and as written her proposal does fail to account for some of the causes of the current crop of large scale goliaths in tech.