2 ms·
There is an appropriate level of suspicion to have from base rates and incentives. For example, almost literally every war the US has gotten into after WWII ha
by roenxi 3y ago
There is an appropriate level of suspicion to have from base rates and incentives.
For example, almost literally every war the US has gotten into after WWII has ended in disaster, with no useful goals achieved and lots of money wasted. There is a consistent pattern where they start off optimistic with an obvious bad guy to get, then over 4-8 years the grey reality sets in and the costs become obvious.
There has to be something I would recognise as a conspiracy going on there, hard evidence or no. It doesn't make sense to be that stupid unless there is a group of people making bank from the spending and organising to push the mad agenda. The decision makers have full visibility into the disasters they are pushing.
- wolverine876 3y agoThis argument seems to say: I observe a pattern, therefore it is caused by a conspiracy. Every pattern isn't caused by conspiracy. The nature of knowledge is to first establish that there is a pattern (I've hypothesized the same one), and then look for what correlates with it. In this case, it's been well-known - or rather the leading issue - in international relations for generations, if not centuries: How do people get into dumb wars (all wars are awful, a very few are necesssary)?