4 ms·
> but weren't Does that imply unaccountable, or does it mean Congress thought they were doing a good job?
by exe34 2y ago
> but weren't
Does that imply unaccountable, or does it mean Congress thought they were doing a good job?
- XorNot 2y agoExactly this. People say "unaccountable" but the follow up question is "for what?". The misinformation era means there's a gulf of frequently incorrect assumptions about what the Federal agencies actually do.
- try_the_bass 2y agoAgain, if these agencies are never actually held accountable, this is functionally identical to "unaccountable". I mean, what if Congress created them to be unaccountable? Then both things would be true!
- exe34 2y agoAre you claiming the fbi has never been called to testify before Congress? or are you claiming that it didn't happen enough? or that it didn't happen for the things you personally wanted it to happen over? these are very different situations, and it appears you wish to defend the motte and get the bailey for free?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- try_the_bass 2y agoNo? I wouldn't consider the FBI to be an "unaccountable organization". I never said all government organizations are unaccountable? Just that (practically-speaking) some organizations are unaccountable because they rarely (or never) are called to account by those who are supposed to hold them accountable. This could be due to them simply being a low-stakes organization that demands very little attention, for all I know! Interesting that you call out a specific fallacy whilst bringing your own strawman into play!