it would be interesting except it's kind of just a mental trap that comes down to the whole thing about emails: eventually it's just going to be > well, he has a phd in this and you don't and anyone that thinks that is a convincing argument is someone i cannot actually talk away from their position: they already judged i don't have a right to do that i mentioned before i am currently optimized for meta bullshit and going through each le key would be more object-level (i.e. "proving le facts" or whatever, rather than addressing the currents and modes of thought above it). "the keys" are a specific example of what redditman was mocking in this   or what that eugenics account was correctly attacking when it came to sars response > well, we need to do x because it saves lives, obviously > how do you know it saves lives > it's obvious for stuff that was likely doing nothing at best and actively hurting at worst. similar pattern of thought here > well, it's obvious wartime helps the opposition > well, it's obvious good economy helps the incumbent some people agree with premise of the keys (those assumptions of how elections "obviously" work) and try to debate le factsnlogic because everyone is reddit brained > ackshually, we're in wartime > ackshually, the economy is bad maybe the facts are true or not true. most of it is semantics (what does "good" mean? what does "war" mean?) that the phd can smugly declare authority in defining on his terms ("heh, war in the ukraine doesn't count as war, you fool"). it's an epistemic post-truth durrdurr thing that he gets a cheat code for (social "credibility" while i'm just an internet rando) - no one actually cares to argue this for real, they want those cheat codes (no one appreciates my hands arguments, for example) but i'm not even sure those assumptions are valid. they might have a better record than tossing a coin, but that isn't saying much on what, not even four events?
United States