4 ms·

> What we had before is a normal amount of corruption. There's no such thing as having zero crime. These two things aren’t mutually exclusive. Also, “normal”

by DANmode 1mo ago

> What we had before is a normal amount of corruption. There's no such thing as having zero crime. These two things aren’t mutually exclusive. Also, “normal” isn’t good. In fact, “normal” often seems like a horrible bar to aim for. > Corruption that actually meaningfully hurts the country and the world at scale (in recent history) only started with this administration. You don’t do the sort of systemic damage observant people have been pointing out for MANY administrations. Is this one bad? Yes. But it’s really weird and incorrect (based on the definition of the words) to say the corruption only just recently became real / meaningful / harmful.

hakunin 1mo ago
Observant people pointing out corruption is not corruption. Real prosecuted corruption exists. That's why we have courts. Otherwise, it's conjecture that everyone is too eager to believe. Any behavior that can be explained, among other things, with corruption, is just added to the roster, because being cynical protects you from accidentally coming off foolish or naive. But it isn't serious. This is the first time in recent history we went from normal amount of incidents of corruption to straight up corrupt administration. > “normal” often seems like a horrible bar to aim for. If "normal" is a horrible bar to aim for, you should figure out what a world with zero crime would look like. I don't think you would ever want that world if you take time to think about it.
- DANmode 1mo ago
  Unprosecuted / unconvicted corruption is not corruption. That’s your position? Yeah, I’m all set here. Talk weird circles with another user.
  - hakunin 1mo ago
    That's literally not what I said. Your position seems to be that if it can be corruption, it is corruption.
    - DANmode 1mo ago
      > Observant people pointing out corruption is not corruption Both your interpretation of my position, and your expression of your own, are indecipherable by any charitable standard. Make more sense, sooner.
      - hakunin 1mo ago
        How do we determine that there’s corruption? If we did that by just pointing out that something looks or feels like it, why not treat all crime this way? There is a reason we created a judicial system. Things very often look and feel completely not how they really are. There exists unprosecuted corruption for sure, just like any other crime, but claiming that it’s somehow happening on an outsized scale vs expected normal baseline? Based on what? Listening to people pointing it out who have everything to gain from selling this narrative? Conjecture and vibes? Again, things can be complicated, even bad. That doesn’t mean they’re corrupt until there’s credible evidence specifically of corruption taking place.
        DANmode 1mo ago
        > why not treat all crime this way? Because government and law enforcement should be held to a higher standard. Here’s the closest and easiest reach to obvious regulatory capture from the other scumbag party: “I am concerned that the size of some of these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them when we are hit with indications that if we do prosecute—if we do bring a criminal charge—it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy.” Lots of Americans are aware of regulatory capture. Yet: folks aren’t even discussing fixing it yet. Everyone is just pointing and mentioning, like a meteor is coming. Where does this fall in your argument? This looks more than “complicated” - whatever that means (please do better).
        hakunin 1mo ago
        That's kind of my point. This was a descriptive, not a prescriptive statement, of a real problem. He literally says that it is concerning that prosecuting large institutions can cause economic harm. He isn't saying they won't prosecute, he says it's difficult because of the downsides. Holder made a mistake of wheeling out a complex nuance to a public that isn't prepared to handle it. I don't understand where is the evidence of malicious force trying to self-serve? Anything specific that points to corruption here? Is this like "yay, Holder gave us a loophole! We just need to build an incredibly large, successful business, and now it will be difficult for Holder to prosecute us, so we can finally start being corrupt"? Is that what you're saying? What large successful business would want to squander it all on corruption on an off chance that the economic inconvenience would save them from prosecution? They are the most incentivized to identify and remove that sort of PR and legal cancer from their org.
- DANmode 1mo ago
  > you should figure out what a world with zero crime would look like. Not zero, but relative near-zero, is possible through exactly two paths. The one you’re validly warning against (surveillance state), but also: tightly-knit communities with few-enough outside visitors. Note that this can include neighborhoods in rural US or urban Italy.
  - hakunin 1mo ago
    Not sure how we can just go ahead and slice up the world into "tightly-knit communities", but even if we could, there's domestic violence, feuding, and mafia that arises just fine in those environments.

by DANmode 1mo ago

hakunin 1mo ago

Observant people pointing out corruption is not corruption. Real prosecuted corruption exists. That's why we have courts. Otherwise, it's conjecture that everyone is too eager to believe. Any behavior that can be explained, among other things, with corruption, is just added to the roster, because being cynical protects you from accidentally coming off foolish or naive. But it isn't serious. This is the first time in recent history we went from normal amount of incidents of corruption to straight up corrupt administration. > “normal” often seems like a horrible bar to aim for. If "normal" is a horrible bar to aim for, you should figure out what a world with zero crime would look like. I don't think you would ever want that world if you take time to think about it.

DANmode 1mo ago
Unprosecuted / unconvicted corruption is not corruption. That’s your position? Yeah, I’m all set here. Talk weird circles with another user.
- hakunin 1mo ago
  That's literally not what I said. Your position seems to be that if it can be corruption, it is corruption.
  - DANmode 1mo ago
    > Observant people pointing out corruption is not corruption Both your interpretation of my position, and your expression of your own, are indecipherable by any charitable standard. Make more sense, sooner.
    - hakunin 1mo ago
      How do we determine that there’s corruption? If we did that by just pointing out that something looks or feels like it, why not treat all crime this way? There is a reason we created a judicial system. Things very often look and feel completely not how they really are. There exists unprosecuted corruption for sure, just like any other crime, but claiming that it’s somehow happening on an outsized scale vs expected normal baseline? Based on what? Listening to people pointing it out who have everything to gain from selling this narrative? Conjecture and vibes? Again, things can be complicated, even bad. That doesn’t mean they’re corrupt until there’s credible evidence specifically of corruption taking place.
      - DANmode 1mo ago
        > why not treat all crime this way? Because government and law enforcement should be held to a higher standard. Here’s the closest and easiest reach to obvious regulatory capture from the other scumbag party: “I am concerned that the size of some of these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them when we are hit with indications that if we do prosecute—if we do bring a criminal charge—it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy.” Lots of Americans are aware of regulatory capture. Yet: folks aren’t even discussing fixing it yet. Everyone is just pointing and mentioning, like a meteor is coming. Where does this fall in your argument? This looks more than “complicated” - whatever that means (please do better).
        hakunin 1mo ago
        That's kind of my point. This was a descriptive, not a prescriptive statement, of a real problem. He literally says that it is concerning that prosecuting large institutions can cause economic harm. He isn't saying they won't prosecute, he says it's difficult because of the downsides. Holder made a mistake of wheeling out a complex nuance to a public that isn't prepared to handle it. I don't understand where is the evidence of malicious force trying to self-serve? Anything specific that points to corruption here? Is this like "yay, Holder gave us a loophole! We just need to build an incredibly large, successful business, and now it will be difficult for Holder to prosecute us, so we can finally start being corrupt"? Is that what you're saying? What large successful business would want to squander it all on corruption on an off chance that the economic inconvenience would save them from prosecution? They are the most incentivized to identify and remove that sort of PR and legal cancer from their org.
DANmode 1mo ago
> you should figure out what a world with zero crime would look like. Not zero, but relative near-zero, is possible through exactly two paths. The one you’re validly warning against (surveillance state), but also: tightly-knit communities with few-enough outside visitors. Note that this can include neighborhoods in rural US or urban Italy.
- hakunin 1mo ago
  Not sure how we can just go ahead and slice up the world into "tightly-knit communities", but even if we could, there's domestic violence, feuding, and mafia that arises just fine in those environments.