• NaibofTabr
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    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]

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      04 months ago

      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.

      • NaibofTabr
        link
        fedilink
        English
        14 months ago

        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.

          • NaibofTabr
            link
            fedilink
            English
            1
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            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.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              14 months 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.