3 ms·

Balanced, sure. Why is 50/50 ethically coherent?

by manux 14d ago

sghiassy 14d ago
I’d also like to know the answer to this
qwerpy 14d ago
Didn’t say it was. But the headline is implying throwing money at this particular side is noteworthy. However, money is going to both sides. Why isn’t the headline “throwing money at various political candidates”?
- sghiassy 14d ago
  Because for many people, and especially for the cohort that is HN readers, the current MAGA republican, doesn’t differ just on policy decisions like a Bush or Regan, but is undermining the institutions that keep our checks and balances in place P.S: I hope this wasn’t too political of a comment. I know we want to keep HN political free. But it does need to be said there’s a difference between policy differences and desecration. Example from today: https://www.cnbc.com/2026/09/18/trump-white-house-ban-msnow-cnn-politico.html https://www.cnbc.com/2026/09/18/trump-white-house-ban-msnow-...
xp84 14d ago
One party does not have an indisputable claim on being ethical. Both of our political parties have done highly unethical things. Without getting into a bunch of hot-button political fights, I'll just say: Different people prioritize different issues and the parties (and their politicians) each have a lot to be ashamed of.
- zetsurin 14d ago
  Maybe one party doesn't have the claim to being ethical, but one party (Republicans) have an indisputable claim on being unethical.
- tzs 14d ago
  > One party does not have an indisputable claim on being ethical. No, but one party does have a disputable claim on being ethical. The other party doesn't even have a disputable claim any more.
legitster 14d ago
The goal is to get a seat at the table, not tip the scale. Even if the government is unethical, it's still a good idea to push for good policy (unless you're an accelerationist). Obviously we're talking about businesses here so what they are pushing for is probably ethically neutral in itself. But supporting everyone equally seems like the least bad option.

Balanced, sure. Why is 50/50 ethically coherent?

by manux 14d ago

Balanced, sure. Why is 50/50 ethically coherent?

sghiassy 14d ago

I’d also like to know the answer to this

qwerpy 14d ago

Didn’t say it was. But the headline is implying throwing money at this particular side is noteworthy. However, money is going to both sides. Why isn’t the headline “throwing money at various political candidates”?

sghiassy 14d ago
Because for many people, and especially for the cohort that is HN readers, the current MAGA republican, doesn’t differ just on policy decisions like a Bush or Regan, but is undermining the institutions that keep our checks and balances in place P.S: I hope this wasn’t too political of a comment. I know we want to keep HN political free. But it does need to be said there’s a difference between policy differences and desecration. Example from today: https://www.cnbc.com/2026/09/18/trump-white-house-ban-msnow-cnn-politico.html https://www.cnbc.com/2026/09/18/trump-white-house-ban-msnow-...

xp84 14d ago

One party does not have an indisputable claim on being ethical. Both of our political parties have done highly unethical things. Without getting into a bunch of hot-button political fights, I'll just say: Different people prioritize different issues and the parties (and their politicians) each have a lot to be ashamed of.

zetsurin 14d ago
Maybe one party doesn't have the claim to being ethical, but one party (Republicans) have an indisputable claim on being unethical.
tzs 14d ago
> One party does not have an indisputable claim on being ethical. No, but one party does have a disputable claim on being ethical. The other party doesn't even have a disputable claim any more.

legitster 14d ago

The goal is to get a seat at the table, not tip the scale. Even if the government is unethical, it's still a good idea to push for good policy (unless you're an accelerationist). Obviously we're talking about businesses here so what they are pushing for is probably ethically neutral in itself. But supporting everyone equally seems like the least bad option.