4 ms·

While I personally do not believe that those orgs "burned literally every ounce of trust they had to get Trump out of office," as I still trust many of them in

While I personally do not believe that those orgs "burned literally every ounce of trust they had to get Trump out of office," as I still trust many of them in terms of their skills and intentions, I greatly appreciated how, before that, you laid out your argument for trust overall, so thank you for taking the time to articulate it as you did.

donw 5y ago
Probably because your team is winning, at least in terms of institutional power.
- ben_w 5y ago
  Speaking as a non-American who doesn’t consider either Democrats or Republicans to be “my team”, it looks to me as if Republicans chose Trump in the first place because they have no trust in the system, and Democrats don’t trust Republicans now, not because Republicans chose Trump, but because (and to the extent that) Republicans continue to defend even Trump’s most egregious flaws. Certainly there was sufficient trust by Democrats when, say, Bush Jr beat Gore or Trump beat Clinton, despite the popular vote in both cases. Grumbling about the unfairness, but still accepting who won the presidency. And that’s despite Trump being a birther: claiming Obama wasn’t even eligible to stand for office? That whole thing represented a lack of trust.
  - pdonis 5y ago
    > it looks to me as if Republicans chose Trump in the first place because they have no trust in the system First, I'm not sure Republicans "chose" Trump; it's more that they suddenly found that he had gamed their nomination system and was their candidate and they had no choice but to make the best of it. Second, I'm not sure Republican politicians in general have no trust in the system. They are part of the system as much as Democratic politicians are. > Democrats don’t trust Republicans now, not because Republicans chose Trump, but because (and to the extent that) Republicans continue to defend even Trump’s most egregious flaws. Defending egregious flaws in whoever happens to be the current party front man is nothing new for either party. That may be at least partly because everyone who ends up being a party front man has egregious flaws. Trump's just happened to be more colorful than most.
- jimkleiber 5y ago
  Perhaps, I think a key component of trust is believing those people are on my team and distrust is believing they aren't, whether the other people believe they are or not. So because I generally trust those institutions, yes, I don't believe they're against me. However, I think it's more of a perspective of who's on my team rather than clearly demarcated teams.
  - pdonis 5y ago
    > I think a key component of trust is believing those people are on my team If this means you don't take an objective look at what those people actually do, and judge it by standards independent of any "team", I think it's a very dangerous strategy. The idea that "my team" should win, regardless of what it takes--that the end always justifies the means--I think has caused more human misery than any other idea we humans have had. If you find that your "team" is using unsavory and unpalatable means to achieve what you think is a "greater good", you should not accept the means--you should rethink the "greater good". Based on human history, it's far more likely that the "greater good" is a lot less than you think and will be more than outweighed by the damage done by the unsavory and unpalatable means being used.
    - jimkleiber 5y ago
      I was trying to say that it is hard to trust someone (or an institution) when we believe that they are not on our team. I didn't mean to imply that just because I think they have good or neutral intentions towards me that they won't do something that will harm me or others. I strongly agree they could do things that most people would consider bad, evil, harmful, etc. I think most of us do things that both help and hurt people. Just as I'm against demonizing someone, I'm also against idolizing them, as I believe they both blind us to the good and bad people will do.
      - pdonis 5y ago
        > I was trying to say that it is hard to trust someone (or an institution) when we believe that they are not on our team. And I am saying that the whole concept of "our team" is a dangerous one. We all have to live in the same society. The idea that we should view things in terms of "teams", where our goal is for "our team" to win and for the "other team" to lose, is wrong. We need to all "win", because all of our fates are tied together by living in the same society. We can't "defeat" the "other team" without also defeating ourselves. That's not to say that we must always agree. Of course we will disagree about things, often strongly. But we should disagree as individuals with different opinions about difficult issues where reasonable people can disagree, not as "team members" who feel like we need to play for our own side and against the other. > Just as I'm against demonizing someone, I'm also against idolizing them To me this means you should be against the whole concept of "teams", since that concept by its very nature involves demonizing the "other team" and idolizing "our team".
tomjen3 5y ago
You don't believe that, when any discussion of the laptop was banned to right after the election, and it was considered racist to believe in the lab leak theory, right until the president changed and now it is officially considered a possibility worth investigating? I don't agree with Trump, but I can easily see why somebody might have lost the remaining trust in the institutions.
- jimkleiber 5y ago
  I'm not saying that people don't have their own personal reasons/stories/experiences for losing trust, I just wanted to say that I haven't. And I'm also not saying it's wrong that someone has lost trust, more so to say that not everyone has lost trust.

donw 5y ago

Probably because your team is winning, at least in terms of institutional power.

ben_w 5y ago
Speaking as a non-American who doesn’t consider either Democrats or Republicans to be “my team”, it looks to me as if Republicans chose Trump in the first place because they have no trust in the system, and Democrats don’t trust Republicans now, not because Republicans chose Trump, but because (and to the extent that) Republicans continue to defend even Trump’s most egregious flaws. Certainly there was sufficient trust by Democrats when, say, Bush Jr beat Gore or Trump beat Clinton, despite the popular vote in both cases. Grumbling about the unfairness, but still accepting who won the presidency. And that’s despite Trump being a birther: claiming Obama wasn’t even eligible to stand for office? That whole thing represented a lack of trust.
- pdonis 5y ago
  > it looks to me as if Republicans chose Trump in the first place because they have no trust in the system First, I'm not sure Republicans "chose" Trump; it's more that they suddenly found that he had gamed their nomination system and was their candidate and they had no choice but to make the best of it. Second, I'm not sure Republican politicians in general have no trust in the system. They are part of the system as much as Democratic politicians are. > Democrats don’t trust Republicans now, not because Republicans chose Trump, but because (and to the extent that) Republicans continue to defend even Trump’s most egregious flaws. Defending egregious flaws in whoever happens to be the current party front man is nothing new for either party. That may be at least partly because everyone who ends up being a party front man has egregious flaws. Trump's just happened to be more colorful than most.
jimkleiber 5y ago
Perhaps, I think a key component of trust is believing those people are on my team and distrust is believing they aren't, whether the other people believe they are or not. So because I generally trust those institutions, yes, I don't believe they're against me. However, I think it's more of a perspective of who's on my team rather than clearly demarcated teams.
- pdonis 5y ago
  > I think a key component of trust is believing those people are on my team If this means you don't take an objective look at what those people actually do, and judge it by standards independent of any "team", I think it's a very dangerous strategy. The idea that "my team" should win, regardless of what it takes--that the end always justifies the means--I think has caused more human misery than any other idea we humans have had. If you find that your "team" is using unsavory and unpalatable means to achieve what you think is a "greater good", you should not accept the means--you should rethink the "greater good". Based on human history, it's far more likely that the "greater good" is a lot less than you think and will be more than outweighed by the damage done by the unsavory and unpalatable means being used.
  - jimkleiber 5y ago
    I was trying to say that it is hard to trust someone (or an institution) when we believe that they are not on our team. I didn't mean to imply that just because I think they have good or neutral intentions towards me that they won't do something that will harm me or others. I strongly agree they could do things that most people would consider bad, evil, harmful, etc. I think most of us do things that both help and hurt people. Just as I'm against demonizing someone, I'm also against idolizing them, as I believe they both blind us to the good and bad people will do.
    - pdonis 5y ago
      > I was trying to say that it is hard to trust someone (or an institution) when we believe that they are not on our team. And I am saying that the whole concept of "our team" is a dangerous one. We all have to live in the same society. The idea that we should view things in terms of "teams", where our goal is for "our team" to win and for the "other team" to lose, is wrong. We need to all "win", because all of our fates are tied together by living in the same society. We can't "defeat" the "other team" without also defeating ourselves. That's not to say that we must always agree. Of course we will disagree about things, often strongly. But we should disagree as individuals with different opinions about difficult issues where reasonable people can disagree, not as "team members" who feel like we need to play for our own side and against the other. > Just as I'm against demonizing someone, I'm also against idolizing them To me this means you should be against the whole concept of "teams", since that concept by its very nature involves demonizing the "other team" and idolizing "our team".

tomjen3 5y ago

You don't believe that, when any discussion of the laptop was banned to right after the election, and it was considered racist to believe in the lab leak theory, right until the president changed and now it is officially considered a possibility worth investigating? I don't agree with Trump, but I can easily see why somebody might have lost the remaining trust in the institutions.

jimkleiber 5y ago
I'm not saying that people don't have their own personal reasons/stories/experiences for losing trust, I just wanted to say that I haven't. And I'm also not saying it's wrong that someone has lost trust, more so to say that not everyone has lost trust.