Secondly, and relatedly, “just put someone better in charge” is not that simple. The people who are currently in charge have their jobs for reasons. Someone chose to hire, elect, or appoint them. Those people probably don’t agree with you on who would be “better.”
-
Show this thread
-
It is a valuable informational service to accurately identify who fucked up. We used to call that “journalism.” It helps people decide whom they can trust and whom they can’t.
1 reply 3 retweets 27 likesShow this thread -
It is not valuable, but rather wishful thinking, to say “someone should do X” unless you are specifically advertising to the potential someones.
1 reply 0 retweets 18 likesShow this thread -
This is a really good thing about
@robinhanson’s style of activism that more people should emulate: he makes actual, novel, positive proposals. “We could do this, and here’s why it would be better than the status quo.” Right or wrong, it contributes new information.2 replies 7 retweets 112 likesShow this thread -
A *serious* proposal, even if it’s a rough draft, is written to and for the people you’re trying to recruit to do the thing. It says “here’s something you might want to do.” It’s constructive in that sense.
2 replies 1 retweet 19 likesShow this thread -
If you’re writing about how the Establishment is bad, who are you writing to, and what are you teaching them or encouraging to do?
1 reply 4 retweets 26 likesShow this thread -
You could be doing the “journalism” thing I mentioned earlier — informing people that their leaders screwed up. That’s good.
1 reply 1 retweet 9 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @peroxycarbonate
Yes, I agree that tracking who was wrong in journalism is good.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Sure but I still agree that it’s good when bloggers note journalists being wrong.
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.