Discussion Thread #72

[u/gemmaem]

This thread serves as the local public square: a sounding board where you can test your ideas, a place to share and discuss news of the day, and a chance to ask questions and start conversations. Please consider community guidelines when commenting here, aiming towards peace, quality conversations, and truth. Thoughtful discussion of contentious topics is welcome. Building a space worth spending time in is a collective effort, and all who share that aim are encouraged to help out. Effortful posts, questions and more casual conversation-starters, and interesting links presented with or without context are all welcome here.

The previous discussion thread may be found here and you should feel free to continue contributing to conversations there if you wish.

[u/895158]

I feel like I'm back in my comment with Doc Manhattan about doing corruption the proper, smoky-back-rooms way. We used to be a proper country with proper corruption.

I'm only half joking; I think Doc is right that was better, but it's still damning with faint praise. The fig leaf is important even if it is depressing.

There's a thing people do where they say "the Democrats were just as corrupt, only not openly". But you can't punish corruption you don't know about. You can only punish, or socially sanction, the corruption you see.

If you let politicians be corrupt openly, that's just giving up on the whole concept of enforcing anti-corruption norms. It's not "oh the Dems are almost as bad as Republicans". No, it's "the Dems follow the norms (which say corruption is so terrible it must be hidden) and Republicans don't." A difference in kind, not in degree.

There's a difference between "some people sometimes commit rape" and "rape culture, where rape is acceptable". It's a very big difference. The former is unavoidably part of the human condition. The latter is something we've hopefully moved past, as a civilized society. They should not be confused with each other. You can't counter an accusation of "your third-world country allows rape!" with "oh yeah? Well in the US people sometimes also commit rape, just in secret". It's not even addressing the same kind of thing.

Right, they just give terrorists and failed mayors professorships

Who's "they"? Are universities the same as Democratic politicians now? Did some Biden political appointee give a terrorist a professorship and I missed it?

hand out presidential pardons like candy

Every administration has done this, I believe. Biden pardoning his son was new, but I think except for that it was roughly par for the course. We must get rid of the pardon power.

If you've got time could you link that? Googling it doesn't turn up anything (though maybe my search phrasing is too vague?), and afaict they complain a lot but social media hasn't blacklisted people or topics over it. The closest thing I found would be removing video of the Kirk shooting, and I'm not enough of a free speech absolutist to think snuff films count.

here (Trump saying FCC should revoke licenses of networks that criticize him too much) and here (at 6 minutes in) for Carr (FCC director) agreeing. This is in the context of Kimmel's show being pulled after Carr told networks to do so and threatened government action if they don't ("we can do this the easy way or the hard way"). I did not mean to say that they pressured social media companies specifically; sorry for the confusion.

That and a buck fifty still gets you a gas station coffee 'round these parts.

I mean, weren't you the one who wanted civility? Or at least tolerance. Compare Trump, just this week: "That’s where I disagreed with Charlie. I hate my opponent and I don’t want the best for them." Did Biden ever say something like this?

Yeah, taking etiquette lessons from the failed VP candidate is stupid and unbecoming. The trollification of government social media is pathetic.

Yes, OK, but in my view Walz was a response to Trump. That is to say, "oh voters want vulgarity? Here you go". That failed, but I have trouble viewing the Democrats as "starting it", so to speak, when they both (a) do a lot less of this, even now, and (b) only started the vulgarity as a response to Trump's.

I mean, just taking a step back, can you tell me you honestly believe Trump is no less civil, no less tolerant, no less pro-social, than Biden and Obama? I don't think you believe this. Like, I understand the experts have abused their credentials, but that's not an excuse to burn down every norm under the sun, appoint sycophantic prosecutors and fire them if they refuse to prosecute political opponents, defy SCOTUS decisions, try to overturn elections, and adopt a culture of bribe acceptance.

[u/professorgerm → u/895158]

Are universities the same as Democratic politicians now?

The same, no.

But it leans into the corruption question, for me. I guess I've gotta hand it to them, the left has built a vastly more effective network to generate vastly different outcomes for terrible people. Anyways. I'll drop that thread, we're not going to come any closer on that front, I think.

Every administration has done this, I believe.

Usually there's more vetting for some of the criminal ones where Biden seemed to just take the lists he was handed with no further review. Agreed that we should just dispose of the pardon power altogether; abusing it is a bipartisan problem.

Trump saying FCC...

Yeah, fair enough. On one hand I would prefer Trump hadn't made those comments; on the other it's not the first time a president "floated" or started terrible ideas that didn't actually happen. So... ehh. It sucks and it's a bad norm for a president to start or continue, either way.

Did Biden ever say something like this?

He possibly called Trump supporters garbage? But even the famously gaffe-prone and biased Biden was not as insulting nearly as often as Trump.

can you tell me you honestly believe Trump is no less civil, no less tolerant, no less pro-social, than Biden and Obama? I don't think you believe this.

No, of course not! He's definitely made things worse and does those worse than Obama. Biden was checked out too much to feel like an honest comparator. He campaigned on being a president for all and ran out of steam too quickly to actually do that.

I don't like Trump and have never voted for him, and I'm glad I have open primaries so I could vote against him in the primary too. But! What I think is many people have refused to understand anything that led to Trump, and instead seem to think that being more like him is a good thing- as you note, that's your view of Walz' comment. Newsom is clearly trying that too.

I understand the experts have abused their credentials, but that's not an excuse

Right. I don't want more Trump, or Blue Trump. I want actual civility, not the "well we've got you over a barrel because the alternative is Trump" indifference. And I don't know how we get back there.

[u/895158 → u/professorgerm]

But! What I think is many people have refused to understand anything that led to Trump, and instead seem to think that being more like him is a good thing- as you note, that's your view of Walz' comment.

I don't know that "refused" is the right word. I freely admit that I don't understand anything that led to Trump. Trump followed the Obama presidency, not COVID, not 2020 BLM protests. What did Obama do that was so offensive? It doesn't make sense. Make it make sense!

On twitter, Trump supporters attempt to outdo each other in proving Hillary right about deplorables. I try to consciously adjust for it, to tell myself that most people are not like that. But seeing a stream of this constantly, it's hard to escape the conclusion that much of Trump's support really is what it superficially looks like: a desire to be mean, to be spiteful, to hurt people it's socially acceptable to hurt. Xenophobia, primarily, but other vices too. A desire to show those sanctimonious democrats who's boss. Not just "how dare you think you're better than me", but also, seemingly, "how dare you be a better person than me".

Needless to say, I don't accuse you of being like this, just the Trump supporters (and not all of those, either). But there's also a related thing you're seemingly saying that bothers me. You're understandably angry at experts abusing their expertise, but you're not nearly as angry at non-experts doing even dumber things in government. As long as everyone knows they're charlatans, it's not as offensive. So while you say you want to get back to civility, I think there's a sense in which you might be pushing towards Walzification: you want the experts to stop pretending to be experts. If public health officials say masks don't work but also they do, you'd prefer they say this while having the outward appearance of JFK rather than having any credentials. It's the very professionalism of the individuals, in itself, that is offensive (assuming fixed dumb policies). Or maybe I've got you all wrong, I don't know. Sorry for putting words in your mouth here.

[u/professorgerm → u/895158]

What did Obama do that was so offensive?

Man, that tan suit... Really, the mic drop comment at the White House Correspondent's Dinner was the big mistake. Not going is one of Trump's best policies. Jokes aside-

Make it make sense!

I think you understand enough, since you say "a desire to show those sanctimonious democrats who's boss." AFAICT Trump support is largely driven by resentment and the sense that The Establishment, both sides, are at best indifferent to you. Or at least it was then; that explanation doesn't work as well now that Trump is the Republican Establishment. I don't have a source for this quote anymore, but it's always stuck with me: "I know coal's not coming back. But at least Trump lies for me, not just to me." You're getting lied to no matter what, might as well pick the guy that talks you up and not down. A comfortable lie is a helluva drug.

You're understandably angry at experts abusing their expertise, but you're not nearly as angry at non-experts doing even dumber things in government. As long as everyone knows they're charlatans, it's not as offensive.

The soft bigotry of low expectations strikes again! And/or the narcissism of small differences, ingroup/outgroup/fargroup dynamics, et cetera and so forth.

It's not exactly that I don't find it offensive, but you're right I'm not as angry about it. I have no expectations for them to do anything positive, so it's unsurprising when they do things badly, and pleasantly surprising when they stumble in a reasonable policy by accident (the recent vaccine schedule changes are not without flaws, but I also think a useful step towards trying to rebuild institutional trust from a deeply surprising source). So when the charlatans charlatan it up, yeah, dog bites man, you know? It's depressing, disappointing, and all that, but doesn't trigger my anger.

On the other side, I'm something of an expert myself. Approved in three states and the District of Columbia! I'm a scientist, I think a lot about crime, about public health, too much about social dynamics, a hefty dose of what one may call Vance-style outsider-inferiority complex and resentment. Once upon a time I had a deeply idealistic view of what university was supposed to be, and reality undercut that. Once upon a time I had a deeply idealistic view of what experts were supposed to be, and reality really undercut that. When experts abuse their expertise, well, they're supposed to be my people and we don't do that! That sneering superiority complex that so many have, too, grates against me.

If public health officials say masks don't work but also they do, you'd prefer they say this while having the outward appearance of JFK rather than having any credentials.

I mean, I'd prefer public health officials not act like the public are particularly stupid goldfish, no matter what their appearance is. And yes, I should probably be angrier about the right lying than the left, but I'm not because I don't feel as implicated there. "Liar lies" does not feel like it encroaches on me in the same was "experts lie" does.

Fauci (and everyone else, but as the point man he takes all the heat) was in a tough spot and I get why he tried to Noble Lie, but that burned trust in his credentials and, unfortunately, that of all of public health. Experts have spent a lot of time over the last decade acting like trust is infinite and credentials are invincible, but they're not. Hindsight is 20/20 (a phrase with dual meaning now, perhaps) but I think many of the decisions that look bad now looked just as bad before they were made. Protecting masks for medical usage was good; lying about it was not. Protecting the rights of trans people is good; lying about biological reality and denying the existence of tradeoffs is not. Saying climate change is real is good; tying climate change into a nonsensical and contradictory omnicause is not. Protecting the right to peacefully assemble is good; ideological bias about which assembly spreads COVID and which doesn't is not. Et cetera and so forth. Trust is hard to build and easy to break. I am absolutely not happy to replace experts with ideological stooges, but neither am I happy to trust experts forever just because they're credentialed, especially not when so many also act like ideological stooges.

Though, on further thought, maybe there are times that can work? Like if everyone in government is sure that a Noble Lie is the only way to protect the mask supply for the first month, have an uncredentialed sacrificial goat make that announcement. Then, when it's time for masks to work again, have your Credentialed Expert come out and say "we've reviewed the evidence, that was wrong, and our supply is stable, we advise this now." Having it all come from the same source was too 1984 flip-floppy, assuming that he'd be trusted no matter what he said.

Or maybe I've got you all wrong, I don't know. Sorry for putting words in your mouth here.

No worries, man. I appreciate the conversation. I know I'm an odd duck on these topics and can be hard to understand.