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
-
-
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
-
then a lot of people would become insolvent. This "gosh, this isn't that much money, only
$x per person" works as rhetoric but the sleight of hand here is that there are, from a personal standpoint, effectively an unbounded number of reasonable causes you could donate $100 to. - 9 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.