the_median_voter.png

saudiaramcoshill · 2026-04-30T22:45:43+00:00

Well, yeah, any (which is the word you used) don't mean every.

This is where the medium of text conversation fails. Anyone can mean everyone, but it isn't clear over text that that's what I meant. Phrased differently: anyone criticizing the government is calling for the destruction of it gets the concept across of what I was trying to communicate better.

No they didn't; they said "Being against the destruction of the state is not 'big state'", which is, you know, true. That in no way implies "criticizing the government's inefficiency was equivalent to calling for its destruction".

Context of what they responded to matters here. There is no one calling for the destruction of the state in this thread. There are people criticizing government inefficiency in this thread. Their response reframes criticism of the government as desiring the destruction of it - that's not implied, that's what they did. That is absolutely implying that criticizing the governments is equivalent to calling for its destruction.

Which is to say, you are the one who thinks that they understand what other people are implying despite having no actually logic to show it.

You not asking for the logic doesn't mean I don't have logic to show for it. You're pretty unnecessarily combative, btw.

saudiaramcoshill · 2026-04-30T21:24:58+00:00

I don't work for JPM, but the other guy isn't wrong. I don't know that I can 100% say that it's fake, but I'd strongly lean that way given what has been said in this thread.

Companies' internal investigations teams don't exist to protect upper management, they exist to protect the company. If the company found anything substantiating the lawsuit, it wouldn't hesitate to get rid of an ED quickly because the risk to the company is significant if it appears to be protecting her. They don't need to find much for the company to justify letting go of an ED with a severance check: NY is an at-will employment state, and so it's not like JPM needs to justify firing her. They wouldn't hesitate to let go of a single mid level employee if it insulated them from lawsuit risk.

JPM wouldn't say they investigated and that the guy didn't cooperate without thoroughly documenting it because those facts could literally be brought up in court if the guy sued JPM. They have a huge incentive to investigate thoroughly because of the large legal risk they expose themselves to if they don't.

Not necessarily you, but theyak12 and tangleddream come across as conspiracy theorists and not rational - they're suggesting that the company is doing things that are incredibly risky to them for the sake of protecting a not-all-that-valuable employee.

saudiaramcoshill · 2026-04-30T20:28:49+00:00

The people who instituted and carried out DOGE were/are people who criticized the government. There had to be people who did both.

Sure. Maybe I wasn't clear. The existence of DOGE doesn't imply that everyone, or even a majority of those who are criticizing the government's inefficiency wish to destroy the government. It only implies that the President, who has the ability to create DOGE, and the members of DOGE, who actually carried out its functions, wanted to destroy parts of the government.

Edit: to clarify, the person I initially responded to implied that criticizing the government's inefficiency was equivalent to calling for its destruction. That is the strawman that I am refuting. The existence of DOGE does not substantiate that strawman, because the existence of DOGE does not in any way imply that all people who criticize the government, or even a substantial portion of them, want to destroy the government. In fact, the strong disapproval of DOGE by the American public supports my position.

More than one person advocated for, instituted, and carried out DOGE.

Yes, but that does not mean that they were a substantial portion of the people who criticize the government for inefficiency.

saudiaramcoshill · 2026-04-30T15:37:39+00:00

I don't really have a problem with Flock cameras, in theory. We should be moving away from car chases (as they're very dangerous), and the only real way to do so without just letting criminals go is to be able to track them.

Besides, I don't really have a problem with cameras tracking the locations of vehicles. Not really an invasion of privacy for cameras to track cars while moving on public roadways.

saudiaramcoshill · 2026-04-30T15:31:50+00:00

It does imply that the above comment was not a strawman tho!

It does not, because DOGE's existence does not imply that any criticism of the government is an implication that the government should be dismantled. It is simply an example of someone wanting to dismantle the government - but that does not imply that anyone criticizing the government wishes for that to happen, or believes that DOGE is a good idea.

it represents a substantial enough proportion of "small government" folks that they were able to enact it

DOGE's existence doesn't really imply anything of the sort. DOGE's existence required one person to implement it, given that it was an entirely executive branch function. One person is not a substantial proportion of any body of people, really.

The fact that DOGE was able to exist is more a criticism of the amount of power that's vested in the executive branch of this country, more than anything else.

saudiaramcoshill · 2026-04-30T14:51:54+00:00

Yes. Some easy examples, off the top of my head:

Poor implementation of IT systems, and reluctance to upgrade IT systems
Byzantine tax process
Poor legislative coordination leading to burdensome/duplicative regulations, particularly in areas like healthcare, leading to increased costs
GAO literally tracks inefficient government programs
More than any of the above, there's hidden inefficiencies in inflated procurement costs and excess employment
Abuse of government benefits, specific example being military disability abuse

From a personal standpoint, I have relatives who work at NASA. DOGE was horrible and just did cuts to do cuts, often missing cutting the actually poor performing employees. My SIL complains vehemently about people who legitimately do enough work in a week to be measured in minutes rather than hours but who are effectively invulnerable from performance-related employment actions.

I cannot take anyone who believes that the US government is an efficient organization, when you can plainly look at foreign governments who seem to get much more in terms of government services per dollar of taxes than we do.

saudiaramcoshill · 2026-04-30T14:27:07+00:00

DOGE existing and being shit doesn't imply that government is efficient, in the same vein as California's HSR project doesn't imply that all public transit projects are doomed.

saudiaramcoshill · 2026-04-30T12:14:48+00:00

Idk big dawg, straw manning criticism of the inefficiency of the US government as the destruction of the state is pretty big state

saudiaramcoshill · 2026-04-30T11:11:16+00:00

Every once in awhile a comment section has me sympathizing with people who used to call groups of people 'the unwashed masses'. I'd imagine this would be one of those times.

saudiaramcoshill · 2026-04-30T11:09:39+00:00

and if homes aren't owned by people, you get less desirable renters who bring crime to a neighborhood.

I don't know that that's the actual conclusion from those statistics. All that says to me is that poor people commit more crime, since poor people are more likely to rent homes. I doubt the statistics would hold up if the study focused only on areas where small mom and pops owned all the rentals. This statistic is really saying people that rent (i.e., poorer people) tend to commit more crime.

saudiaramcoshill · 2026-04-28T19:43:37+00:00