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
-
-
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. -
It's also factually incorrect. Municipalities, at times, have increased their homeless budget by more than $100/person and this has not solved the problem. But I'm pointing out the pattern because it's always intellectually dishonest, it may not always be factually incorrect.
- 8 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.