You keep saying paint a bad picture. That usually means unfair spin. I’m not sure that’s the case here.
As far as your assertion about the Bailout King song, I disagree. Certainly if we were looking at 100% solid objective evidence then what you suggested is all we can conclude. I don’t know about you, but I don’t make decisions only on a 100% chance of truth.
Subculture wise, I don’t give a shit what some random anime con subculture does. I care quite a bit, and I believe quite reasonably, about the behavior of a group who controls a significant portion of the US and Global economy.
Much like the supreme court, I apply strict scrutiny, although in a more colloquial sense, to issues with broader social significance.
Certainly if we were looking at 100% solid objective evidence then what you suggested is all we can conclude. I don’t know about you, but I don’t make decisions only on a 100% chance of truth.
This would be evidence for the attitudes our reporter is attributing to his subjects… if the reporting was unbiased, not in the sense of “lacking an ulterior motive” but in the sense of “proportionately likely to report each option”. (Technically individual data points are still evidence, but potentially much weaker; aggregated ones can in some circumstances be negative evidence.) Given the reporting slant and indeed the fact that we’re discussing journalism, however, I don’t believe we can rely on the provided interpretation of events. I’m willing to take the article as strong evidence that the events themselves did occur—we’re not talking tabloid journalism here—but that’s all.
More generally, I think it’s unreasonable to expect perfectly restrained private behavior—and that is what we’re talking here, if you accept that upper-echelon Wall Street social circles constitute a subculture—from people regardless of their wealth or power. Their behavior as regards the disposition of that wealth and power is socially significant, as to a lesser extent is their public facade. What they do behind closed doors doesn’t concern me.
Its not their lack of restraint that is at issue, its what belief they demonstrate themselves to hold with this particular lack of restraint. Given the events that proceeded this story, wrt the financial sector, its seems quite likely that these beliefs demonstrated in private are in fact the ones they truly hold and which they act upon. After all the original story was about the fate of newbie financial professionals post-Crash. Maybe you could discount this behavior in the time before the Crash, but we have clear and well known evidence of the results of the actions of these people, and then we see them partying and laughing about how they avoided any significant consquences.
You keep saying paint a bad picture. That usually means unfair spin. I’m not sure that’s the case here.
As far as your assertion about the Bailout King song, I disagree. Certainly if we were looking at 100% solid objective evidence then what you suggested is all we can conclude. I don’t know about you, but I don’t make decisions only on a 100% chance of truth.
Subculture wise, I don’t give a shit what some random anime con subculture does. I care quite a bit, and I believe quite reasonably, about the behavior of a group who controls a significant portion of the US and Global economy.
Much like the supreme court, I apply strict scrutiny, although in a more colloquial sense, to issues with broader social significance.
This would be evidence for the attitudes our reporter is attributing to his subjects… if the reporting was unbiased, not in the sense of “lacking an ulterior motive” but in the sense of “proportionately likely to report each option”. (Technically individual data points are still evidence, but potentially much weaker; aggregated ones can in some circumstances be negative evidence.) Given the reporting slant and indeed the fact that we’re discussing journalism, however, I don’t believe we can rely on the provided interpretation of events. I’m willing to take the article as strong evidence that the events themselves did occur—we’re not talking tabloid journalism here—but that’s all.
More generally, I think it’s unreasonable to expect perfectly restrained private behavior—and that is what we’re talking here, if you accept that upper-echelon Wall Street social circles constitute a subculture—from people regardless of their wealth or power. Their behavior as regards the disposition of that wealth and power is socially significant, as to a lesser extent is their public facade. What they do behind closed doors doesn’t concern me.
Its not their lack of restraint that is at issue, its what belief they demonstrate themselves to hold with this particular lack of restraint. Given the events that proceeded this story, wrt the financial sector, its seems quite likely that these beliefs demonstrated in private are in fact the ones they truly hold and which they act upon. After all the original story was about the fate of newbie financial professionals post-Crash. Maybe you could discount this behavior in the time before the Crash, but we have clear and well known evidence of the results of the actions of these people, and then we see them partying and laughing about how they avoided any significant consquences.