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
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @danluu
I can’t read that post in a way that it’s inconsistent with “California water policy unduly favors Almonds”.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @hyperpape @danluu
Arguments from incredulity have a tendency to be hand-wavy, so I assume that you’re filling in the blanks differently. But how you’re doing that is not obvious to me.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @hyperpape
Dan Luu Retweeted Dan Luu
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 …
Dan Luu added,
Dan Luu @danluuReplying to @eshearOne of the core mistakes of the SSC post is that it's implied that all dark money can be summed up with the number Scott comes up with, which is of course wrong: a large fraction, perhaps the vast majority, is off the books. My read is that the post has two parts, both incorrect2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
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.
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.