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
I think my comment is arguably a "well, actually" if viewed as a criticism of the post, I just think it's funny that this example of innocuous money turns out to be very shady. A more direct criticism of the post ishttps://twitter.com/danluu/status/1255001418726928384 …
-
-
I think the quoted thread is full of good criticisms. The post has debatable assumptions at best, is misguided at worst.
-
I may be verging into "well actually" territory myself, but I don't think he (needs to) say almonds are innocuous, just that we collectively don't value them that much. If we spent more on them than we do on politics, that would suggest underspending.
- 6 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
It's also arguably not a "well, actually". If every other innocuous sounding industry of a similar size you can think of is also full of backroom dealing that significantly impacts policy, then it's actually a reasonable direct argument against the post.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.