2 ms·

You see I want to give what you say some merit for a second. But I am 100% certain that you hold some political views and convictions. And I am 100% certain t

You see I want to give what you say some merit for a second. But I am 100% certain that you hold some political views and convictions. And I am 100% certain that you would use funding information against your political opponents. And it's not wrong. But let's just not pretend that all of a sudden this is something that should be hidden away "to prevent premature judgement". Yea right. Cui bono should ALWAYS be a legitimate question to ask.

kmlx 3y ago
no one is arguing for "hidden away". we just want more information. it helps no one except the conspiracy fans when you find out someone is funded by the Gates Foundation. funded for what? for how much? these details matter.
- jdthedisciple 3y ago
  The extension seems to offer a ton of information already, and it's still in its early stages it seems. Moreover, the genuine reader can always use Google and Wikipedia to educate themselves further. Besides, your OP certainly reads like advocating for hiding away certain facts as a kind of better choice in a tradeoff of sorts. Otherwise you would have certainly written it in a more constructive manner as opposed to implying that we would be better off without things like this extension altoghether (for fear that facts may "exacerbate" things).
  - kmlx 3y ago
    i suggest you re-read my initial comment.
    - jdthedisciple 3y ago
      Just did, still can't find the constructive content. The destructivism in it, however, was about 259 characters long.
altacc 3y ago
The problem with cui bono is that it can, and usually is, be twisted to fit any narrative without proving causation. Just because something is possible, or beneficial, does not mean it happened or had any causal link. Human decision making is full of shortcuts when there's a good story that aligns with existing beliefs.
- jdthedisciple 3y ago
  That's only true in some kind of naive sense imho. When "big people" with particular histories do "big decisions" such as where to spend a specifically humongous amount of $$$ it is usually a very conscious decision. Thus it can be deeply insightful to ask "what interests could entity X possibly derive out of investment Y".
  - kmlx 3y ago
    > "what interests could entity X possibly derive out of investment Y" sure, but will this question lead to a thoughtful investigation or a "grab the pitchforks" moment? we already know the answer: "grab the pitchforks".
    - jdthedisciple 3y ago
      If only we saw this much thoughtfulness and consideration in both directions on the political spectrum. Yet we have other commenters on here still using pejorative words like "anti-vaxxers" despite all the science that has come out. Everyone likes to create "grab the pitchforks" moments when it fits their narrative.
  - altacc 3y ago
    > That's only true in some kind of naive sense imho. My opinion is that the use of cui bono is simplistic and naive and therefore inherently prone to abuse. It is rarely a real tool for investigation and then only ever the starting point, but for many it is the conclusion. For example, to pick a controversial topic, who gains from Trump being investigated for multiple crimes before an election and so who is behind these investigations? The obvious answer, derived from cui bono, is that Trump is orchestrating these investigations into himself in order to profit financially and politically. It keeps funds rolling in, keeps him in the media spotlight whilst drowning out stories about his opponents and builds up his reputation as fighting against the the swamp/deep state/whatever. Pure genius, he's playing 4 D chess ;) However it is equally easy to make the case the the Democrats, judges, deep state, Illuminati, whomever... benefit from trying to stop Trump from being elected again. But which story you believe is totally based on existing bias, making cui bono nothing but a tool for confirmation bias.

kmlx 3y ago

no one is arguing for "hidden away". we just want more information. it helps no one except the conspiracy fans when you find out someone is funded by the Gates Foundation. funded for what? for how much? these details matter.

jdthedisciple 3y ago
The extension seems to offer a ton of information already, and it's still in its early stages it seems. Moreover, the genuine reader can always use Google and Wikipedia to educate themselves further. Besides, your OP certainly reads like advocating for hiding away certain facts as a kind of better choice in a tradeoff of sorts. Otherwise you would have certainly written it in a more constructive manner as opposed to implying that we would be better off without things like this extension altoghether (for fear that facts may "exacerbate" things).
- kmlx 3y ago
  i suggest you re-read my initial comment.
  - jdthedisciple 3y ago
    Just did, still can't find the constructive content. The destructivism in it, however, was about 259 characters long.

altacc 3y ago

The problem with cui bono is that it can, and usually is, be twisted to fit any narrative without proving causation. Just because something is possible, or beneficial, does not mean it happened or had any causal link. Human decision making is full of shortcuts when there's a good story that aligns with existing beliefs.

jdthedisciple 3y ago
That's only true in some kind of naive sense imho. When "big people" with particular histories do "big decisions" such as where to spend a specifically humongous amount of $$$ it is usually a very conscious decision. Thus it can be deeply insightful to ask "what interests could entity X possibly derive out of investment Y".
- kmlx 3y ago
  > "what interests could entity X possibly derive out of investment Y" sure, but will this question lead to a thoughtful investigation or a "grab the pitchforks" moment? we already know the answer: "grab the pitchforks".
  - jdthedisciple 3y ago
    If only we saw this much thoughtfulness and consideration in both directions on the political spectrum. Yet we have other commenters on here still using pejorative words like "anti-vaxxers" despite all the science that has come out. Everyone likes to create "grab the pitchforks" moments when it fits their narrative.
- altacc 3y ago
  > That's only true in some kind of naive sense imho. My opinion is that the use of cui bono is simplistic and naive and therefore inherently prone to abuse. It is rarely a real tool for investigation and then only ever the starting point, but for many it is the conclusion. For example, to pick a controversial topic, who gains from Trump being investigated for multiple crimes before an election and so who is behind these investigations? The obvious answer, derived from cui bono, is that Trump is orchestrating these investigations into himself in order to profit financially and politically. It keeps funds rolling in, keeps him in the media spotlight whilst drowning out stories about his opponents and builds up his reputation as fighting against the the swamp/deep state/whatever. Pure genius, he's playing 4 D chess ;) However it is equally easy to make the case the the Democrats, judges, deep state, Illuminati, whomever... benefit from trying to stop Trump from being elected again. But which story you believe is totally based on existing bias, making cui bono nothing but a tool for confirmation bias.