I find the SSC "Too much dark money in almonds" post interesting because it starts from the premise that there obviously isn't too much dark money in almonds, an argument from incredulity, and uses this (and similar) to argue that there isn't too much dark money in politics, but
-
-
Perhaps someone could figure out a way to estimate an upper bound on the sum of all these things combined and argue that it's still small, but the fact that this kind of "indirect" money influencing politics isn't mentioned except in the cases where it seems small, e.g., tumblr,
-
makes the reasoning seem either ill informed or disingenuous. I'd classify a rhetorical trick SSC often relies on that's on display here, twice in this essay, similarly. If everyone just donated $100 to every cause they thought was at least as important as homelessness,pic.twitter.com/o7BND6fItH
- 10 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.