there's "charitable interpretation" and there's "being a mark" and the inability or refusal to distinguish between the two is practically a credential in some circles
The adamant elite refusal to call bullshit is a big part of How We Got Here.
The prevailing cultural attitude for years is you must not, under any circumstances, treat anything as bad faith. You are obligated to find some reasonable idea and engage with that, even if you distort to get there.
I told someone yesterday that our courts are too slow against Trumpism, that judges should be able to sign a “No that’s BS; Dismissed” order, which would take about a minute.
No need for 60 page opinions that take a month to come out
Told another way: true impartiality actually means a degree of skepticism. Being immediately convinced by the words out of somebody’s mouth is just credulousness.
It’s also a clear sign of privilege.
The fine line between charitable interpretation and being a mark – it's like the difference between a judge's gavel and a con artist's smile.
There's also a very strong temptation to take any opportunity that presents itself, to marshal resources or an advantage in one's long-running beefs with colleagues or rivals.
i dont think it is exaggerating to say most people understand the difference from first princoples is whether one is interpreting a pro-business statement
The principle of charity is important for reconstructing arguments. It’s a terrible way to deliver the news.
Discernment demands both embracing the ever-present possibility that, eh, a Nazi might have a point, and absolute intolerance toward the possibility that socialized medicine might produce a better society
funny ("funny") bc the original claims—"DC crime is the lowest in decades"—actually lead naturally to "so obviously, the man is full of shit, just using the big balls-beatdown as an excuse to dress up as an authoritarian" or w/e. the fact of low crime can communicate that this is BS—if you let it!
I think it’s simpler than that: if your life has been too good, you don’t learn to defend effectively against danger.
Yes! This slippery slope has lowered us into comic book villains and insanity.
I mean hell, Musk got a $30 BILLION bonus to basically come back to work! "Re-engage" they called it.
You or I go goof off on another job for months and months? No bonus. We'd get fired.
Absolutely absurd.
Individual reporters and some editors/producers are one of those two. People further up in the hierarchy are in a different category of "in on it"
That we’re a nation awash in poisonous bad faith runs counter to the idea of American exceptionalism and the inherent goodness of its people, and demands the sort of introspection and reconciliation that many of us, especially the well positioned, aren’t willing to engage in.
The application of good faith is still conditional in this model IMO.
It's only those judged as rational/civilised/reasonable who get granted it, and there are always Others who are not.
There are a lot of people who have, fundamentally, no commitments whatsoever.
A lot of institutions have, during the Trump years, taken some of liberalism’s more admirable intellectual habits and stretched them into grotesque parodies of themselves. A laudable openness to self-criticism becomes a fetish for self-flagellation.
How many times have we seen that silly joke about malice vs incompetence as though it actually were some sort of holy axiom of life interpretation? It's utterly bonkers.
No! See malice as malice! Deal with people who act maliciously as malicious!
You can also see them as stupid! Do both!
Even socially, otherwise "progressive" folk get so pissy when you point out that something didn't occur in a vacuum, but as another event in a series of events with a pretty obvious trajectory.
Not just big shit, either. Even day to day - a cashier shorts your change daily? Can't be intentional. 🤷♂️
Was raised to think the best of everyon. And I genuinely still try to. Still, I learned along this long road that it’s better to « hope » to think the best of people, not to do it off the bat. Watch, listen, and listen to your gut. Was heartbroken & cheated far too many times before I learned this.
Something we must always keep in mind is that the construction of race science, for use of somehow justifying chattel slavery and Europe colonialism, was a top down endeavor (i.e. it was institutionalized). There is a legacy of this culpability and capitulation.
I'm really tired of the idea of 'steelmanning' stuff
I have long said that amorphous "reasonable" term is the weak point of all American law and jurisprudence. It is not an actionable, consistent standard. It's a weasel word that allows for the dog & pony rhetoric show to elide critical thinking of any kind.
this is like the lifeblood of the legal academe, which is a big part of the rot. allowed the federalist society to thrive and through it adorn so many stupid fascist worms with the regalia of accomplishment and prestige
open.substack.com/pub/robertre...
Nine critical steps
IKR? They're in cahoots. Period.
And when someone repeatedly and obviously bullshits you, you must stop taking their claims seriously. Good faith requires reciprocity.
AMEN
Those circles have dangerously included the federal judiciary at all levels.
Driven largely by cowardice and the inability/unwillingness to understand that there’s a difference between taking a stand and political posturing.
Davidson avec Sade
Feel like this has gotten much worse in Trump II.
I lost track of how many times calls to be more charitable meant “you have to treat my point as a good one.”
But it isn’t a good point. By the standards of logic, morality, and empirical support, it’s a bad point. Why would I pretend it’s a good one?
Much commentary about this subject looks past the obvious, indeed what was obvious ten years ago:
America had never made someone President who’d been married three times. Or, who had a background in the parasitic, socially valueless gaming industry. Or, who came from reality television. 1/2
NPR is a prime example of this problematic phenomenon.
There’s also “being a willing collaborator who wants plausible deniability”
There's also being complicit while pretending to be a mark.
Some people who believe the con man are marks, but some of the ones loudly talking about how great the con is are shills.
"Look, this guy is vouching for me, and we have never met!" wink, wink
In my mind I heard:
That’s why I love Gavin Newsom. He’s calling Trump a Cunt he is.
