Hacker News Reader

Comment by rendall | Hacker News Reader

My answer is a few rules of thumb:

- political stance is not my identity

- actively seek to falsify that which I know to be true

- be skeptical about any statement that fits neatly into my preconceptions

- apply the principle of charity, to reply to the strongest, most charitable interpretation of a statement, even of those with whom I disagree

- not to rely on any source once it has demonstrated a capacity to lie

- understand most people want prosperity and peace in society, and may have different, possibly excellent ways of getting there

- no, most people are not idiots, morons, crazy or evil, not even those who look at the same information I have and come to a different conclusion

View on HN

That sounds lovely but theory and practice vary in their overlap.

One point I'll counter you on is that a significant portion of the population is literally below average intelligence and that hate and spite are strong motivators for many.

I've yet to see any capitulations by the crowd obsessed with Hunter's laptop but I'm willing to try to zero in on that with you to see if your words match your actions.

> One point I'll counter you on is that a significant portion of the population is literally below average intelligence

Yes, half, but IQ is only one measure of a person. Compassion, wisdom, grit are others. Someone can be low IQ and yet wise, compassionate, etc.

> and that hate and spite are strong motivators for many.

Not sure what you mean by that. How many? How do you know?

> I've yet to see any capitulations by the crowd obsessed with Hunter's laptop

What would capitulation look like to you? Do you see me as one of "the crowd obsessed with Hunter's laptop"?

> but I'm willing to try to zero in on that with you to see if your words match your actions.

Not really sure what actions are possible given the format. But sure, walk me through.

> Do you see me as one of "the crowd obsessed with Hunter's laptop"?

Unfortunately, yes.

> What would capitulation look like to you?

To acknowledge the good/bad of each player based upon a reasonable understanding of their behavior.

> (re hate/spite): Not sure what you mean by that. How many? How do you know?

* I mean that people will act on emotion rather than rationale in a significant number of cases, and that hate can trump love. * How many? That's a silly question. Enough to matter.

> But sure, walk me through.

Ok, first try (true/false):

  a. Do you think Biden/Obama were materially moved by Hunter's participation with Burisma
  b. Do you think that the kerfluffle about Hillary's emails aided in her losing the election?
  c. Do you think that even that the laptop controversy itself hurt the Biden campaign?
  d. Are you aware of the concept of an "October Surprise"?
  e. If so, do you think they are real?
  f. If so, do you think they work?

Essay question: This write-up about the affair aligns with my understandings; do you see any truth in this: https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-make-johnson-grassley-repor...

Bonus points: are you religious?

Where I am it's getting quite late, so I'll continue this a bit tomorrow.

>> Do you see me as one of "the crowd obsessed with Hunter's laptop"?

> Unfortunately, yes.

Confused about that. I haven't discussed it at all.

> That's a silly question.

If we're going to have a conversation, that kind of thing is right out. Deal?

You still haven't really answered the question I've been asking repeatedly. A little bit, but not to the depth you're asking of me.

First and foremost, I appreciate the civil dialog and will do my best to maintain it; I'm doing this because of a desperate desire to find some commonality, not to score points.

>> That's a silly question.

You asked for numbers of a population that has no census, I stated that it was significant, which is the point in question. I can prove that those people exist and then it's a matter of threshold. E.g, "how many atoms in that falling piano" -- "enough to kill you if it hits you".

> You still haven't really answered the question I've been asking repeatedly

I don't follow, will review the thread(s) again to see what that is (would have helped to reiterate btw). The irony is that I'm feeling the same way (do you care about the corruption of the Trump administration as well?)

Let's return when time allows? My intentions are honorable and maybe something positive could come of it.

> You asked for numbers of a population that has no census, I stated that it was significant, which is the point in question. I can prove that those people exist and then it's a matter of threshold. E.g, "how many atoms in that falling piano" -- "enough to kill you if it hits you".

You could have stated all of that without insult.

I probably travel in different circles than you do, but Americans voting from the motivation of "hate" is not in my experience. Short-sighted self-interest, definitely. Way too influenced by partisan propaganda, absolutely. Hate per se, not so much. Whether your experience is truer than mine, dunno. But asking what you meant isn't silly, and if you do it again, I'll end the conversation.

What is in my experience, though, the accusation of hate is often used in one-word partisan dismissal of valid concerns. For instance, rural voters have suffered economic devastation from government policies. They tend to perceive coastal elites as ignoring their concerns. True or not, coastal voters, including nearly all journalists and pundits, all agree with each other that this is definitely not actually true. And let's just say the quiet part out loud: rural people are Jesus obsessed, homophobic, uneducated, gullible, AM-radio-addicted racists. Their voting for Trump is therefore entirely due to white fragility and other irrationality, and there is zero - absolutely zero - valid reason to vote for him. Clinton was clearly the better choice, and any concerns about her were entirely due to sexism and lies. This is all so clear, that any disagreement at all is silly, am I right?

I said silly, not stupid. No insult implied -- we all sometimes ask "wrong" questions.

Clinton actually was the better choice; in fact, technically one of the most qualified candidates in history (trained lawyer, 8 years in the white house next to the president, a stint as US senator and then as secretary of state).

Versus a reality teevee "billionaire" with a long track record of (likely) criminal behavior and clear narcissistic tendencies.

It was a popularity contest and Mrs. Clinton, whilst intelligent and experienced, lacks the charisma of her husband and has had decades of coordinated conditioning of hate.

Hell, I voted for her and resented her for being the only choice (but could safely assume she'd at least hold to the status quo). I felt like she thought she was entitled to the office....

> rural voters have suffered economic devastation from government policies

I challenge that -- re: the government. They have been decimated but by big business that moved their jobs offshore. Anything the government did to allow that was influenced by same big business that effectively controls the government.

And that quiet part out loud? I see plenty of evidence to support that as a theme (and why I asked about your faith).

We are not rational actors, we are emotional responders (yes, there are exceptions but it still holds). Gods, Guns, and Gays are mainstays of political messaging to instill fear and anger.

Just look at the anti-trans stuff happening now: fear baiting. The party of small government wants to pass laws against people having control over their own bodies. As a nod to the concerns in that realm, I recognize and agree that athletic competition should be able to decide if/how they want to allow competition with transitioned people.

One last thought for this pass: I encountered a Trump supporter who declared she hoped Trump would "burn Washington to the ground". I assume she's not alone in that, and that frustration is understandable.

But.... then you're left with nothing and need to rebuild and no thought is given to what should rise up to replace it. Hating government is stupid, as "government" is inevitable in society and as bad as it is today there's plenty of ways to make it worse (e.g., a Kleptocratic Mafia State like Russia (whose head Mr. Trump appears to be unduly devoted to)).

> Clinton actually was the better choice; in fact, technically one of the most qualified candidates in history

Personally speaking, I did not like how she and her colluders ran down the Sanders campaign. Their characterization of his supporters as sexists and racist was fundamentally, profoundly dishonest. They could have addressed his policy proposals, but went the other way.

This led me to understand that this would be what we could expect from her Presidency. Before that, I was open to Clinton.

After her loss, I had been hoping for a Democratic party introspection about the way they had run this campaign and a house cleaning. Instead, we got enablers, diversion and outright lies. A shuffling of the worst actors, but no purge. Extremely disappointing. We still have never had an honest accounting for that debacle, and I remember and distrust every news outlet and commentator that repeated those lies.

I want to be clear that I did not vote for Trump, either. But he was not the worst President in my living memory. That honor goes to the President who lied to the public in order to get us into two (2) ruinous, useless wars and did not adequately prepare successfully for the occupation. Honestly, not having tentacles throughout government is a bonus, to my mind.

I was pissed when the DNC conspired against Sanders. I also think that her politics were of "hold finger in the air to see which way the wind blows" (the antithesis of Sanders).

She's also a hawk and too chummy with our corporate overlords.

But in the general election not voting for the lesser candidate is effectively voting for the worse candidate (unless done after one's state has been decided).

As for worst, your choice is understandable and I'm not going to directly contest it. At least Bush was somebody I'd enjoy having a beer with ;-)

And as to the introspection I think a problem with that is that the military is deified and the masses get angry when you diss the troops. Plus ye olde Military Industrial Complex locks in all districts for their share of the loot.

Dems suck at messaging, unlike the Right. People in general don't seem to care enough and only want soundbites, which makes it hard to have those discussions because nuance gets lost.

Not sure about the tentacles thing.

The government has broken its social contract with the people, and it has become an extractive kleptocracy. This happened starting with Reagan, Bush the Elder, Clinton, Bush the Younger, and yes, Obama. None of these people - nor anyone in Congress - made it better. Not the Republicans, not the Democrats.

Trump? Not him either. I tell you, pstuart, Trump was a Hail Mary pass by people who have had everything taken from them by Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum, and from their perspective they saw only obstruction and lies from the same people who have nothing but contempt for them. And that quiet part out loud? I see plenty of evidence to support that as a theme (and why I asked about your faith). People like yourself, unfortunately. They knew - knew it after decades of betrayal - that their situation would absolutely not have changed under Clinton 2.0 and certainly will not under Biden.

These are the people who voted for Trump. Look at them. Really look past your coastal prejudices. Look past what you have been told about these people. If you get squicked, or believe somehow they deserve this, you are not on the side of compassion, to be honest. https://youtu.be/oT7_8S5K9oA?t=834

So, you keep saying I have selective outrage, but then you hammer on Trump and co but give Biden a pass. Me, I give neither a pass. They're both assholes. The same corporate media that's telling you that Trump is bad is also telling you Biden is good.

And you do your "gut check" media discrimination. I'll give you a quick smoke test to see whether a media outlet lies. You won't like it, you won't believe me, and if you decide that I'm correct anyway, you'll dismiss its importance, but here goes: If you look back into the archives of a news source, and they said that Trump called Mexicans rapists, then you know they are liars and they lie about other things.

a. If by "materially moved" you mean were their policies influenced by Hunter Biden, probably not.

b. Yes. I don't think the "kerfuffle" did it, but what actually happened with the emails.

c. I think it would have hurt his campaign badly if the story were not suppressed.

d. Yes.

e. Yes.

f. Yes.

Ok, I read the essay. It's an opinion / explainer that Hunter's laptop did not contain any actionable proof of Joe's corruption. As for "seeing truth in it", I honestly don't know enough about the topic. Again, let's grant it as true in all respects.

I am not religious.

I think I might be understanding where your Socratic method is attempting to lead me. Is it your contention that the suppression of the laptop scandal is far less important than keeping an actually corrupt President out of the White House? That while Hunter Biden may have traded on his father's position, Joe Biden is not corrupt and so, we should let the suppression slide?

As a partisan, you might have an idea that all people who criticize "your side" are necessarily on "their side". Not true in my case.

In my opinion, both parties are deeply corrupt, and worse, they have legalized their corruption. As a duopoly, they get away with it. We voters only have the option to switch back and forth between Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum. I liked Sanders, not because of his policies, but because of his incorruptibility, but that was not allowed.

Worse, whenever we bring up corruption of anyone, there's a peanut gallery primed to talk about the corruption of "the other side". Questions of Hunter's acquiring millions of dollars with no apparent qualification other than "son of US VP"? "You know, Ivana Trump worked out a copyright deal in China". Questions about foreign diplomats staying in Trump's hotel while working out trade treaties with the President? "You know, Hillary Clinton made millions in speaking fees while Secretary of State". Questions of Hillary's emails? "Trump also took classified documents."

But worse than any of that... yes, even worse... the fourth estate has entirely abdicated its function as a non-partisan release valve to all this nonsense (if it ever actually did that at all anyway).

So, honestly, I'm less upset about Biden's laptop than I am about official attempts to suppress it. You should be upset about that, too, even though it helped "your side". Next time, it won't be your side. Next time, it might be somebody really dangerous.

So, I ask yet again, and please take time with your answer: given that your news sources have demonstrably lied to you, what are the specific principles that enable you to evaluate what is important and what can be dismissed as unimportant?

The point of the laptop story was not to root out corruption, it was just to smear Biden. I've yet to see anything that indicates otherwise.

I've been consistent in stating that it was flat out corrupt intention by Hunter's board membership, but haven't seen anything compelling that indicates they got their money's worth. That is, no proof that Joe Biden participated in that corruption. If there was compelling proof many of his supporters would no longer support him (self included).

Of course there's plenty of corruption and the most blatant form of that is campaign financing -- legalized bribery. There's ways to change that but one side is fully opposed to it.

> I've been consistent in stating that it was flat out corrupt intention by Hunter's board membership, but haven't seen anything compelling that indicates they got their money's worth. That is, no proof that Joe Biden participated in that corruption.

The evidence may be on that laptop. Which was suppressed as a story. By the request of the FBI. Who has the laptop in their possession.

It is your unwillingness to even entertain the possibility of corruption there that makes me believe you have been unduly influenced by partisan news.

> what are the specific principles that enable you to evaluate what is important and what can be dismissed as unimportant?

First and foremost is how many outright lies I find in the output of that source (e.g., Tucker Carlson makes claims that are consistently outrageous).

Next up would be getting a feel for the bias of the source (blatant vs innate)

Then it's compare and contrast across different media feeds.

I'd submit that this is not adequate, because it allows for too much bias towards that which you already believe to be true; and to too-easily reject that which does not already fit in with your preconceptions. Actively falsifying claims you already believe is pretty key. Doing that on your own is essential. It's difficult, especially if you're embedded within a social context that believes "the other side" is stupid at best.

And back to the damn laptop -- if there's compelling evidence how come there hasn't been actual charges?

What if the value of the laptop story is just the cloud of doubt itself? The lack of action about prosecuting it supports this.

Buttery Males? Clinton's email server was wrong but apparently a continuation of non-compliance by previous office holders (e.g., Colin Powell). Not cool but understandable.

The issue with the top secret documents that Trump has show zero good faith justification. He was famous for not being interested in being briefed (so why now?), and was not permitted to take the docs, then lied about returning them. All the time though keeping them in questionable security.

There's not a single valid reason for him to have those docs and plenty of very bad plausible ones (blackmail/extortion).

Trump shared intelligence with Russia that wasn't meant to be shared and did significant damage to the operation and trust of our partner: https://www.wsj.com/articles/intelligence-trump-shared-with-...

But out of all of this you're most bothered by the fact that a smear campaign was not amplified enough?

> As a partisan

Now it's my turn to be offended. I am anti-partisan. In a two-party system I'm forced to choose the lesser of two evils. I have no side, and certainly no love for the DNC.

I try to align with science, reason, and compassion. That is my side.

I don't think that Joe Biden is corrupt in a significant degree (he's deferential to his patrons but that is assumed for virtually all players). He doesn't seem obsessed with wealth and there's no indication he's significantly cashed in beyond the genteel corruption of speaking fees.

That liberal rag Forbes agrees with me: https://www.forbes.com/sites/michelatindera/2021/06/10/heres...

Hunter Biden is an adult and his father did not have direct influence over him; the investigation exonerated him of being bought.

Your complaints about the Fourth Estate are selective. The DNC email dump got plenty of action. CNN gave Trump at least a billion in free advertising (e.g., cutting away from Sanders mid speech to an empty podium that was anticipating a Trump episode).

And again, on evaluating news I look for minimal bias and maximum accuracy on what I know to be true. There's limited reporting on the "flaws" of Biden: gaffe-prone, the kept property of the credit card industry, inappropriate lingering touches, a shameful dismissal of Anita Hill, overly cautious. Perhaps more, but that's what comes to mind.

Meanwhile there's a well-documented sordid history of his rival. In fact, I'm not aware of any admirable qualities of note. This assessment is simply from the consistency of it, not because of his political party (I would enjoy having a beer with GWB as much as I disagreed with his administration).

While this has been a political themed dialog, the core question about the suppression is also simple: there exists speech that should not be tolerated (let alone promoted). Not censored, in that if you find a way to speak you are not jailed. Just not promoted, e.g., go buy your own printing press (as has historically been the case).

Anti-vax propaganda and hate speech fall into this category. I've been temporarily banned by Facebook for perceived hate speech (it wasn't), so I understand how this can fucked up but thats life. Rules can be abused but it's still valuable to have them.

>> As a partisan

> I try to align with science, reason, and compassion. That is my side.

Awesome. Then we are on the same side, even if we disagree on how best to get there, and on interpretation of the even the same facts.

> That liberal rag Forbes agrees

You should understand that Forbes runs a side-project that works like SubStack. It's hard to see, but note in the url this `/sites/michaelatindera`. Those sites get less fact-checking and oversight than normal because they are more intended as opinion pieces. This sub-site is from someone named Michaela Tindera whose beat seems to have been billionaires in government. https://www.forbes.com/sites/michelatindera/

I read the article, but it was long and uninteresting, and after paragraphs of not actually saying where the money went, I skimmed it to the end. While it seems to show what you said to be true "that Joe Biden is [not] corrupt in a significant degree", I think this kind of thing is picking at lint. I suspect Joe Biden, like Clinton and unlike Trump, is well aware of the bounds of legal corruption and will always be able to say correctly that he follows the law, even though the law itself allows for legalized corruption such as earning high speaking fees as private citizens. Or high-paying sinecures for family members. As a comparison, the only reason Trump's bullying of Ukraine was illegal while Joe Biden's was legal, was not because one act was inherently ethical and the other is wrong, but because Biden has intimate awareness of these arcane protocols through long experience; Trump does not. To my mind, it doesn't matter if it's legal. If it's wrong, it's wrong, no matter which party does it. We can quibble about whether Joe Biden "meant" to help out his son, but the fact is, he did. He quashed the investigation and has a plausible, legal reason for doing so.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com