this post was submitted on 23 Jul 2024
86 points (91.3% liked)

politics

18863 readers
3824 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

I didn't ask any "extremely vague" questions, I asked you for evidence that supports your opinion. There's nothing remotely vague about that.

Oh sorry, you wanted evidence for her normalizing it?

She's the boss. If the boss does it, it's okay.

This is not evidence, it is conjecture. Evidence requires you to present some corroborating information which substantiates your opinion. You still haven't presented any. Everything you have said is still just your opinion - that is, a load of hot air.

That may not sound complicated enough to you

Being complicated or not has nothing to do with it. You need to present information that backs up your claims, otherwise they're not worth the time you spent typing them.

Did I get your question? If not then that's on you.

There is no question to "get". There is simply a request for evidence. Sources. News articles. Stock value tracking. Data analyses. Anything.

To put it bluntly: [citations needed]

[–] xmunk 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I can't help you if you reject evidence.

We have one government and we can't gather data on how it responds to different stimuli... unless, that is, you look at the thousands of workplaces we have with similar power dynamics (and general sociology studies) where people set social contracts by observing seniority and leadership.

If you want a discussion of how social norms emerge in most settings, see Section 4 in

https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-economics-080614-115322

But if you work in an office this should be pretty self-evident.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I can't help you if you reject evidence.

What evidence? You haven't provided any. You need to substantiate this claim:

as the speaker she greatly normalized the corruption and made incredible money at the cost of her constituents.

with some directly relevant corroborating information.

[–] xmunk 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Points at link.

Points at the entire field of sociology.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

That link is an academic paper about social norms in general. It has nothing to do with Nancy Pelosi or insider trading or government corruption, which is why I said:

directly relevant corroborating information

You are drawing inferences based on assumptions. You haven't provided anything that constitutes evidence.

[–] xmunk 1 points 1 month ago

As I said in my comment above. We have one US Government, we cannot run experiments on it. I don't know if you've ever worked in statistics or even just taken uni level statistics, but your desired level of proof is simply ridiculous and unattainable.

Here, I have given you a mountain of data that paints a pretty clear picture but no, I can't "prove" it was Pelosi - just like you can't prove it wasn't ancient aliens.

I really do hope you're trolling because this beyond silly.