4 ms·
My answer is a few rules of thumb:
- political stance is not my identity
- actively seek to falsify that which I know to be true
- be skeptical about any sta
My answer is a few rules of thumb:
- political stance is not my identity
- actively seek to falsify that which I know to be true
- be skeptical about any statement that fits neatly into my preconceptions
- apply the principle of charity, to reply to the strongest, most charitable interpretation of a statement, even of those with whom I disagree
- not to rely on any source once it has demonstrated a capacity to lie
- understand most people want prosperity and peace in society, and may have different, possibly excellent ways of getting there
- no, most people are not idiots, morons, crazy or evil, not even those who look at the same information I have and come to a different conclusion
a. If by "materially moved" you mean were their policies influenced by Hunter Biden, probably not.
b. Yes. I don't think the "kerfuffle" did it, but what actually happened with the emails.
c. I think it would have hurt his campaign badly if the story were not suppressed.
d. Yes.
e. Yes.
f. Yes.
Ok, I read the essay. It's an opinion / explainer that Hunter's laptop did not contain any actionable proof of Joe's corruption. As for "seeing truth in it", I honestly don't know enough about the topic. Again, let's grant it as true in all respects.
I am not religious.
I think I might be understanding where your Socratic method is attempting to lead me. Is it your contention that the suppression of the laptop scandal is far less important than keeping an actually corrupt President out of the White House? That while Hunter Biden may have traded on his father's position, Joe Biden is not corrupt and so, we should let the suppression slide?
As a partisan, you might have an idea that all people who criticize "your side" are necessarily on "their side". Not true in my case.
In my opinion, both parties are deeply corrupt, and worse, they have legalized their corruption. As a duopoly, they get away with it. We voters only have the option to switch back and forth between Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum. I liked Sanders, not because of his policies, but because of his incorruptibility, but that was not allowed.
Worse, whenever we bring up corruption of anyone, there's a peanut gallery primed to talk about the corruption of "the other side". Questions of Hunter's acquiring millions of dollars with no apparent qualification other than "son of US VP"? "You know, Ivana Trump worked out a copyright deal in China". Questions about foreign diplomats staying in Trump's hotel while working out trade treaties with the President? "You know, Hillary Clinton made millions in speaking fees while Secretary of State". Questions of Hillary's emails? "Trump also took classified documents."
But worse than any of that... yes, even worse... the fourth estate has entirely abdicated its function as a non-partisan release valve to all this nonsense (if it ever actually did that at all anyway).
So, honestly, I'm less upset about Biden's laptop than I am about official attempts to suppress it. You should be upset about that, too, even though it helped "your side". Next time, it won't be your side. Next time, it might be somebody really dangerous.
So, I ask yet again, and please take time with your answer: given that your news sources have demonstrably lied to you, what are the specific principles that enable you to evaluate what is important and what can be dismissed as unimportant?
The point of the laptop story was not to root out corruption, it was just to smear Biden. I've yet to see anything that indicates otherwise.
I've been consistent in stating that it was flat out corrupt intention by Hunter's board membership, but haven't seen anything compelling that indicates they got their money's worth. That is, no proof that Joe Biden participated in that corruption. If there was compelling proof many of his supporters would no longer support him (self included).
Of course there's plenty of corruption and the most blatant form of that is campaign financing -- legalized bribery. There's ways to change that but one side is fully opposed to it.
> I've been consistent in stating that it was flat out corrupt intention by Hunter's board membership, but haven't seen anything compelling that indicates they got their money's worth. That is, no proof that Joe Biden participated in that corruption.
The evidence may be on that laptop. Which was suppressed as a story. By the request of the FBI. Who has the laptop in their possession.
It is your unwillingness to even entertain the possibility of corruption there that makes me believe you have been unduly influenced by partisan news.
> what are the specific principles that enable you to evaluate what is important and what can be dismissed as unimportant?
First and foremost is how many outright lies I find in the output of that source (e.g., Tucker Carlson makes claims that are consistently outrageous).
Next up would be getting a feel for the bias of the source (blatant vs innate)
Then it's compare and contrast across different media feeds.
I'd submit that this is not adequate, because it allows for too much bias towards that which you already believe to be true; and to too-easily reject that which does not already fit in with your preconceptions. Actively falsifying claims you already believe is pretty key. Doing that on your own is essential. It's difficult, especially if you're embedded within a social context that believes "the other side" is stupid at best.
And back to the damn laptop -- if there's compelling evidence how come there hasn't been actual charges?
What if the value of the laptop story is just the cloud of doubt itself? The lack of action about prosecuting it supports this.
Buttery Males? Clinton's email server was wrong but apparently a continuation of non-compliance by previous office holders (e.g., Colin Powell). Not cool but understandable.
The issue with the top secret documents that Trump has show zero good faith justification. He was famous for not being interested in being briefed (so why now?), and was not permitted to take the docs, then lied about returning them. All the time though keeping them in questionable security.
There's not a single valid reason for him to have those docs and plenty of very bad plausible ones (blackmail/extortion).
Trump shared intelligence with Russia that wasn't meant to be shared and did significant damage to the operation and trust of our partner: https://www.wsj.com/articles/intelligence-trump-shared-with-russia-was-from-israel-officials-say-1494960259 https://www.wsj.com/articles/intelligence-trump-shared-with-...
But out of all of this you're most bothered by the fact that a smear campaign was not amplified enough?
> As a partisan
Now it's my turn to be offended. I am anti-partisan. In a two-party system I'm forced to choose the lesser of two evils. I have no side, and certainly no love for the DNC.
I try to align with science, reason, and compassion. That is my side.
I don't think that Joe Biden is corrupt in a significant degree (he's deferential to his patrons but that is assumed for virtually all players). He doesn't seem obsessed with wealth and there's no indication he's significantly cashed in beyond the genteel corruption of speaking fees.
That liberal rag Forbes agrees with me: https://www.forbes.com/sites/michelatindera/2021/06/10/heres-how-much-joe-biden-is-worth/?sh=3d1442b5461b https://www.forbes.com/sites/michelatindera/2021/06/10/heres...
Hunter Biden is an adult and his father did not have direct influence over him; the investigation exonerated him of being bought.
Your complaints about the Fourth Estate are selective. The DNC email dump got plenty of action. CNN gave Trump at least a billion in free advertising (e.g., cutting away from Sanders mid speech to an empty podium that was anticipating a Trump episode).
And again, on evaluating news I look for minimal bias and maximum accuracy on what I know to be true. There's limited reporting on the "flaws" of Biden: gaffe-prone, the kept property of the credit card industry, inappropriate lingering touches, a shameful dismissal of Anita Hill, overly cautious. Perhaps more, but that's what comes to mind.
Meanwhile there's a well-documented sordid history of his rival. In fact, I'm not aware of any admirable qualities of note. This assessment is simply from the consistency of it, not because of his political party (I would enjoy having a beer with GWB as much as I disagreed with his administration).
While this has been a political themed dialog, the core question about the suppression is also simple: there exists speech that should not be tolerated (let alone promoted). Not censored, in that if you find a way to speak you are not jailed. Just not promoted, e.g., go buy your own printing press (as has historically been the case).
Anti-vax propaganda and hate speech fall into this category. I've been temporarily banned by Facebook for perceived hate speech (it wasn't), so I understand how this can fucked up but thats life. Rules can be abused but it's still valuable to have them.
>> As a partisan
> I try to align with science, reason, and compassion. That is my side.
Awesome. Then we are on the same side, even if we disagree on how best to get there, and on interpretation of the even the same facts.
> That liberal rag Forbes agrees
You should understand that Forbes runs a side-project that works like SubStack. It's hard to see, but note in the url this `/sites/michaelatindera`. Those sites get less fact-checking and oversight than normal because they are more intended as opinion pieces. This sub-site is from someone named Michaela Tindera whose beat seems to have been billionaires in government. https://www.forbes.com/sites/michelatindera/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/michelatindera/
I read the article, but it was long and uninteresting, and after paragraphs of not actually saying where the money went, I skimmed it to the end. While it seems to show what you said to be true "that Joe Biden is [not] corrupt in a significant degree", I think this kind of thing is picking at lint. I suspect Joe Biden, like Clinton and unlike Trump, is well aware of the bounds of legal corruption and will always be able to say correctly that he follows the law, even though the law itself allows for legalized corruption such as earning high speaking fees as private citizens. Or high-paying sinecures for family members. As a comparison, the only reason Trump's bullying of Ukraine was illegal while Joe Biden's was legal, was not because one act was inherently ethical and the other is wrong, but because Biden has intimate awareness of these arcane protocols through long experience; Trump does not. To my mind, it doesn't matter if it's legal. If it's wrong, it's wrong, no matter which party does it. We can quibble about whether Joe Biden "meant" to help out his son, but the fact is, he did. He quashed the investigation and has a plausible, legal reason for doing so.
The government has broken its social contract with the people, and it has become an extractive kleptocracy. This happened starting with Reagan, Bush the Elder, Clinton, Bush the Younger, and yes, Obama. None of these people - nor anyone in Congress - made it better. Not the Republicans, not the Democrats.
Trump? Not him either. I tell you, pstuart, Trump was a Hail Mary pass by people who have had everything taken from them by Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum, and from their perspective they saw only obstruction and lies from the same people who have nothing but contempt for them. And that quiet part out loud? I see plenty of evidence to support that as a theme (and why I asked about your faith). People like yourself, unfortunately. They knew - knew it after decades of betrayal - that their situation would absolutely not have changed under Clinton 2.0 and certainly will not under Biden.
These are the people who voted for Trump. Look at them. Really look past your coastal prejudices. Look past what you have been told about these people. If you get squicked, or believe somehow they deserve this, you are not on the side of compassion, to be honest. https://youtu.be/oT7_8S5K9oA?t=834 https://youtu.be/oT7_8S5K9oA?t=834
So, you keep saying I have selective outrage, but then you hammer on Trump and co but give Biden a pass. Me, I give neither a pass. They're both assholes. The same corporate media that's telling you that Trump is bad is also telling you Biden is good.
And you do your "gut check" media discrimination. I'll give you a quick smoke test to see whether a media outlet lies. You won't like it, you won't believe me, and if you decide that I'm correct anyway, you'll dismiss its importance, but here goes: If you look back into the archives of a news source, and they said that Trump called Mexicans rapists, then you know they are liars and they lie about other things.