Starting to suspect that there are decreasing returns to damaging a person's reputation with scandal when n > 1 and negative when n > 3 Probably especially so when subsequent stories are small beer compared to the original Sort of an "arson, murder, and jaywalking" effect
-
Show this thread
-
Kind of expecting Karbvjdvvgh is past this crest and every breathless story about a keg now undermines efficacy of earlier claims See: Trump
2 replies 0 retweets 11 likesShow this thread -
Unsure what the exact mechanism is. Some hypotheses: -- Dilution: people evaluate negative claims around a central moment -- Exhaustion: people adjust and move on -- Reaction: people begin to view as deliberate hits --> untrustworthy (reject un-genuine attacks?)
1 reply 1 retweet 12 likesShow this thread -
I don't think this is party-specific; compare Clinton scandals Basically, I think you get one shot at a public figure. After that they're immune, maybe barring dead girls or live boys. (cf Milo) Come at the king . . .
3 replies 1 retweet 10 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @eigenrobot
It's the Paradox of Unanimity. The more evidence you have of a proposition, the more evidence you have that there's a systemic bias. 3 witnesses are credible, 100 is a show trial.
1 reply 3 retweets 10 likes -
Replying to @asglidden @eigenrobot
(On further reflection, I realize that the phenomenon you're describing is not quite the Paradox of Unanimity, although there is some conceptual overlap.)
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
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.