Your comment makes me want to be more explicit about the norm I was using, so that I don’t contribute to eroding the overall group norm.
I believe it is OK to post about politics if all of the following are true:
-Some point you make is non-obvious.
-Some point you make is potentially useful.
-Every point you make is beyond reasonable debate in your mind. That is to say, you are so confident that you are right that most readers would agree with you even after seeing someone post the other side, that you’d be willing to leave a contrary response without a public answer.
When I posted the above, I roughly thought that it met all those criteria. On second consideration, I think I was wrong about that in some regards.
Claim 1: The electoral college substantially contributed to the degree of failure of the US with regard to COVID-19. I consider this beyond reasonable debate. By saying so I am not casting aspersions on those who disagree or challenging them to express their disagreement, merely stating my considered opinion.
Claim 2: Gerrymandering and/or Senate malapportionment contribute to hyper-partisanship of the kind that could, at least in theory, in turn contribute to polarized acceptance of basic hygeine measures such as masks. Again, I consider this beyond reasonable debate.
Claim 3: The odds ratio for accepting voting reform between Republicans and Democrats is considerable, such that if a time traveller from the future told me that voting had been reformed before 2030, I would be confident that it had been done by Democrats. In my book, beyond reasonable debate.
Claim 4: Republicans would be able to veto reform by holding just 1 of the 3 loci of power I mentioned: WH, House, and Senate. Beyond reasonable debate.
Implicit claim 5: these are the three bodies that are most key to success. Debatable; should have explicitly disclaimed.
Claim 6: Democrats have non-negligible chance of carrying out reform. Debatable; shouldn’t have said this.
Claim 7: Because of all of the above, you, dear USA reader, should vote for Democrats. Highly debatable and should have been out-of-bounds.
Note: by writing all this out, I am NOT encouraging object-level discussion. I’m sure there are people here who’d disagree with one or more of my judgements on what is or isn’t debatable. I’m simply trying to be explicit about the interpretation of the rules I was implicitly using to justify writing my original post, and about how in retrospect, I think I was letting myself be too loose about that interpretation. I’d be happy to discuss these issues of norms insofar as it doesn’t get bogged down at the object level.
Your comment makes me want to be more explicit about the norm I was using, so that I don’t contribute to eroding the overall group norm.
I believe it is OK to post about politics if all of the following are true:
-Some point you make is non-obvious.
-Some point you make is potentially useful.
-Every point you make is beyond reasonable debate in your mind. That is to say, you are so confident that you are right that most readers would agree with you even after seeing someone post the other side, that you’d be willing to leave a contrary response without a public answer.
When I posted the above, I roughly thought that it met all those criteria. On second consideration, I think I was wrong about that in some regards.
Claim 1: The electoral college substantially contributed to the degree of failure of the US with regard to COVID-19. I consider this beyond reasonable debate. By saying so I am not casting aspersions on those who disagree or challenging them to express their disagreement, merely stating my considered opinion.
Claim 2: Gerrymandering and/or Senate malapportionment contribute to hyper-partisanship of the kind that could, at least in theory, in turn contribute to polarized acceptance of basic hygeine measures such as masks. Again, I consider this beyond reasonable debate.
Claim 3: The odds ratio for accepting voting reform between Republicans and Democrats is considerable, such that if a time traveller from the future told me that voting had been reformed before 2030, I would be confident that it had been done by Democrats. In my book, beyond reasonable debate.
Claim 4: Republicans would be able to veto reform by holding just 1 of the 3 loci of power I mentioned: WH, House, and Senate. Beyond reasonable debate.
Implicit claim 5: these are the three bodies that are most key to success. Debatable; should have explicitly disclaimed.
Claim 6: Democrats have non-negligible chance of carrying out reform. Debatable; shouldn’t have said this.
Claim 7: Because of all of the above, you, dear USA reader, should vote for Democrats. Highly debatable and should have been out-of-bounds.
Note: by writing all this out, I am NOT encouraging object-level discussion. I’m sure there are people here who’d disagree with one or more of my judgements on what is or isn’t debatable. I’m simply trying to be explicit about the interpretation of the rules I was implicitly using to justify writing my original post, and about how in retrospect, I think I was letting myself be too loose about that interpretation. I’d be happy to discuss these issues of norms insofar as it doesn’t get bogged down at the object level.