4 ms·

You're going to mislead a lot of non-Americans here with the bit about political donations. In America, you can donate to one party to benefit the other party b

You're going to mislead a lot of non-Americans here with the bit about political donations. In America, you can donate to one party to benefit the other party by virtue of candidate selection during primary elections. Who one donates to does not necessarily match their preferred party.

freedomben 4y ago
Yes that happens, but how common is it really? I've never heard of anyone actually doing that.
- reaperducer 4y ago
  Yes that happens, but how common is it really? I've never heard of anyone actually doing that. It's becoming more common. I wouldn't say it's fully "common" yet. I think the most public example was the recent gubernatorial election in Illinois. Incumbent Governor Pritzker donated money to a very far-right candidate, Darrin Baley, so that he would get the Republican nomination, and push moderate voters toward Pritzker in the general election. It was all very well documented in Illinois newspapers during the election, and the New York Times did at least one piece about it, too. The Times also noted that after the election, Biden gave a speech where he made a statement that this was not an acceptable practice. He didn't call out Pritzker by name, but if you were following the Illinois election, you know who he was talking about.
- Eisenstein 4y ago
  How many major campaign donors do you know? Is your anecdotal knowledge particularly meaningful in this context?
  - freedomben 4y ago
    I know quite a few donors, though none major. But why the "major" qualifier? The conversation context here seems to be normal employees, not major donors, so I would challenge that knowledge must be of "major" donors to be relevant. We're talking about "98%" of employees, not just a few high ranking execs that donate to both parties (which, btw, absolutely is common).
    - Eisenstein 4y ago
      > But why the "major" qualifier? The original comment is referencing Twitter having donated to Democrats. This would be a 'major' donor in my estimation. And you never answered my ultimate question -- is your anecdote particularly useful here?
      - freedomben 4y ago
        > The original comment is referencing Twitter having donated to Democrats. This is the crux of our disagreement. You are considering "Twitter" as a singular entity making donations, while I consider employees of Twitter as individual entities, 98% of whom donated to Democrats. I believe the latter is the context, while you do not. If you're correct on the context, then I would agree. As I mentioned before, it's very common for organizations/big business to donate to both parties. I would direct you to the grandparent where the context was set: > So we have a company headquartered in SF, and I think something like 98% of twitter's political donations went to democrats, and the employees acted as constant activists whenever the executives didn't take action against high level conservatives (I'll leave aside whether that action was justified or not).
        Eisenstein 4y ago
        > I think something like 98% of twitter's political donations went to democrats That reads to me as 'Twitter the organization', not 'Twitter the people in the organization'. I suppose it could be either, but I have never heard that kind of wording for a company as its constituent employees instead of as a monolith. I am open to a different interpretation if you can guide me through it and it seems plausible to me, but if there is no reconciling the disparate readings then I suppose we shall have to admit to an impasse.
        freedomben 4y ago
        Ah indeed, I can definitely see that interpretation. I agree it's ambiguous enough that we don't know. Thanks for the discussion!
overgard 4y ago
Uh, so your thesis is that twitter was donating to the democrats to help the republicans by choosing bad democratic candidates? Yeah, I'm not convinced.

freedomben 4y ago

Yes that happens, but how common is it really? I've never heard of anyone actually doing that.

reaperducer 4y ago
Yes that happens, but how common is it really? I've never heard of anyone actually doing that. It's becoming more common. I wouldn't say it's fully "common" yet. I think the most public example was the recent gubernatorial election in Illinois. Incumbent Governor Pritzker donated money to a very far-right candidate, Darrin Baley, so that he would get the Republican nomination, and push moderate voters toward Pritzker in the general election. It was all very well documented in Illinois newspapers during the election, and the New York Times did at least one piece about it, too. The Times also noted that after the election, Biden gave a speech where he made a statement that this was not an acceptable practice. He didn't call out Pritzker by name, but if you were following the Illinois election, you know who he was talking about.
Eisenstein 4y ago
How many major campaign donors do you know? Is your anecdotal knowledge particularly meaningful in this context?
- freedomben 4y ago
  I know quite a few donors, though none major. But why the "major" qualifier? The conversation context here seems to be normal employees, not major donors, so I would challenge that knowledge must be of "major" donors to be relevant. We're talking about "98%" of employees, not just a few high ranking execs that donate to both parties (which, btw, absolutely is common).
  - Eisenstein 4y ago
    > But why the "major" qualifier? The original comment is referencing Twitter having donated to Democrats. This would be a 'major' donor in my estimation. And you never answered my ultimate question -- is your anecdote particularly useful here?
    - freedomben 4y ago
      > The original comment is referencing Twitter having donated to Democrats. This is the crux of our disagreement. You are considering "Twitter" as a singular entity making donations, while I consider employees of Twitter as individual entities, 98% of whom donated to Democrats. I believe the latter is the context, while you do not. If you're correct on the context, then I would agree. As I mentioned before, it's very common for organizations/big business to donate to both parties. I would direct you to the grandparent where the context was set: > So we have a company headquartered in SF, and I think something like 98% of twitter's political donations went to democrats, and the employees acted as constant activists whenever the executives didn't take action against high level conservatives (I'll leave aside whether that action was justified or not).
      - Eisenstein 4y ago
        > I think something like 98% of twitter's political donations went to democrats That reads to me as 'Twitter the organization', not 'Twitter the people in the organization'. I suppose it could be either, but I have never heard that kind of wording for a company as its constituent employees instead of as a monolith. I am open to a different interpretation if you can guide me through it and it seems plausible to me, but if there is no reconciling the disparate readings then I suppose we shall have to admit to an impasse.
        freedomben 4y ago
        Ah indeed, I can definitely see that interpretation. I agree it's ambiguous enough that we don't know. Thanks for the discussion!

overgard 4y ago

Uh, so your thesis is that twitter was donating to the democrats to help the republicans by choosing bad democratic candidates? Yeah, I'm not convinced.