[gonehome]

In his essay in particular there's a ton of stuff that's just wrong.

Nancy Pelosi is not the mayor of SF for instance (or the DA, or on the state legislature), city policy is not her job or responsibility. There's more than just that - the essay is riddled with inaccuracies and confused misunderstandings the author dismisses by just saying 'they don't pay attention to politics'.

If I wrote an essay riddled with technical errors staking a position about technology and then dismissed details as 'I don't pay attention to maths' would that be similarly accepted? It'd be dismissed as stupid. Why is it different for politics? [0]

The belief that everyone is equally bad/corrupt is wrong and it just makes you a mark. People attempt to signal intelligence or deep wisdom by pretending they're above the fray, but it's not actually smart or wise. [1]

The essay is rambly, over-confident, and in the end even mean spirited.

> What is it that makes it utterly impossible for an educated/intelligent person to hold the view that US/Western politics is so dysfunctional and corrupt across the board that even a crazy-seeming rank outsider like Kanye could be better than the status quo?

Clearly it's not impossible as evidenced by the essay, but it's still wrong.

[0]: http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html

[1]: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/jeyvzALDbjdjjv5RW/pretending...

[ephextom]

OK, fair enough about the specific/technical errors, but on the other hand it's a mistake to dismiss someone's entire argument over specific technical details when the overall argument may still be "directionally" true/valid.

"If I wrote an essay riddled with technical errors staking a position about technology" - this is not really an apt comparison, because politics is something that everyone is meant to be qualified to comment on, by virtue of the fact that every adult is considered to be informed enough about politics to vote. So it's the directionality of the argument that matters, not every fine detail. And given that the real topic of the essay seems not to be politics but leadership, as a successful company founder the author is very qualified to comment on that, and his mistaken beliefs about political details are not central to the argument.

In the case of the particular error you point out, sure it's technically incorrect of him to refer to "the city and county of San Francisco she controls", but as a Democratic Party congressperson representing that area, she could easily influence policy to improve the running of that city/county. So he's not completely off target with that critique.

"The belief that everyone is equally bad/corrupt is wrong and it just makes you a mark"

I don't think that's what he's saying, and it's not what I said or what I believe.

As for “pretending to be wise”; he doesn’t seem to be offering a neutral position and by virtue of writing a very long, reputation-risking post on the topic, he’s not avoiding investing resources, so that post doesn’t seem to be relevant.

But this notion that is morally incumbent for everyone to endorse and vote for a major party candidate is, in my observation, usually an attempt to guilt/shame people into supporting the proponent's preferred party.

How is it not acceptable for an educated person to adopt such a view as: "this whole circus is a stupid game orchestrated by media behemoths, financial institutions, military contractors and other cronies and rent-seekers, and it serves mostly to divide and exploit ordinary individuals and families in order that a small number of elite insiders can profit, and I choose not to play a role in perpetuating it"?

I'm not saying you have to believe that; clearly you don't, and nor do I, completely. But I know of people, educated, objectively intelligent people, not just fringe conspiracy-theorists, who hold this kind of position very sincerely, and whether it's completely valid or not, I don't see how it's an unquestionably wrong or immoral position to hold.

[gonehome]

> politics is something that everyone is meant to be qualified to comment on, by virtue of the fact that every adult is considered to be informed enough about politics to vote

I don't agree with this. Just because you have the right to vote does not mean you're informed. Just like the right to free speech doesn't mean what you say is worth listening too. The freedom to comment doesn't mean the comments will be any good.

> but as a Democratic Party congressperson representing that area, she could easily influence policy to improve the running of that city/county.

This just feels like a rationalized excuse to me. He criticizes her for changes unrelated to her responsibilities or power and then it's not off target because she could have tried to fix those things anyway? She's not involved there - I doubt you can effectively engage in two complex policy/politics arenas and be effective.

She wouldn't know the specific details and wouldn't have time/access to work with people in the state government on it. To me it's like blaming a cardiologist for stomach cancer because they work in the same general medical field, it shows a complete lack of understanding of basic government.

> As for “pretending to be wise”; he doesn’t seem to be offering a neutral position

He's making a false equivalence between two major party candidates with the general message being they're equivalently bad so let's try a third crazy person instead (with some weak justifications). The 'everyone is bad' argument is the above the fray pretending to be wise bit. Then he gets the details wrong.

> But this notion that is morally incumbent for everyone to endorse and vote for a major party candidate

Not voting for a major party candidate is equivalent to not voting in its effect. It's basically a position that either major party candidate is similarly bad.

> How is it not acceptable for an educated person to adopt such a view as: "this whole circus is a stupid game orchestrated by media behemoths, financial institutions, military contractors and other cronies and rent-seekers, and it serves mostly to divide and exploit ordinary individuals and families in order that a small number of elite insiders can profit, and I choose not to play a role in perpetuating it"?

I know this position well because it was often held by people around me growing up. It's a position that sounds smart, but isn't - and feels a lot like the being above the fray pretending to be wise signaling. I've never met someone who holds it and has a good nuanced understanding of the issues - they're always just dismissing things out of hand without having tried to understand any of it. I recognize this could be read as me just putting people I disagree with in a class of 'no nuanced understanding', but look at this essay as an example. A strong position from someone who is openly admitting they have barely learned anything about what they're talking about.

I'm not arguing there aren't problems in government (perverse incentives, cronies, rent-seekers, etc.) - doing something complex at scale is hard, but it's possible to learn about policy and what people are actually doing and come to an informed decision about the details. You can read things like The World As It Is, you can read about people that work in the government (or work there yourself). You can see the real effects of policy in action and the effects of legal shifts on history.

The position you mention is intellectually weak as well as wrong, people are free to hold it - but when I read a long screed about it (this essay) filled with even dumber arguments (and conspiracies) pushing for a crazy person to hold the office I'm compelled to call it out for what it is.

[Also - as an aside I appreciate the thoughtful back and forth. The discussion is in good faith, the wording above isn't an attack of your comment - I'm happy to try and make how I think about this clearer/disagree in a pleasant way.]