It would be helpful if you made an actual argument or were specific in any way with your criticism. That comment section is filled with a wide spectrum of perspectives. I honestly have no idea what your subtext is here.
So you linked to a reddit comment section and said "these people aren't rational". Welcome to the internet. Thanks for your contribution. Fitting right in.
It's not clear to me how this is related to my original post. While I want to foster conversation here, please keep comments related to the original topic. I'm fine if the discussion moves into related topics, but the connection needs to be made clear.
It is regarding perception, upon which this whole reality thing sits. It's a pretty big deal, but not something that can be discussed in polite company (and we're surprised everything is such a mess lol).
RBG is a complicated example, as there was a stretch of SIX YEARS where she basically couldn't retire due to politics (Trump + last two years of Obama). It's really quite a big request to factor that into a time to retire decision. Maybe it was necessary, but do recognize the magnitude of it. Biden ended up in a somewhat similar predicament. The time to step down was last year at latest, so there could be competitive Democratic primaries. Now it's too late in practice. People don't get to the top in politics by avoiding all high-risk actions, and sometimes those blow up.
While I acknowledge that it's hard to know what will happen over 6 years, I don't view that as exculpatory at all for RBG.
Obama, among others, gently tried to work toward getting RBG to step down in 2013. At the time, she was 80 years old and had already had two bouts with cancer. Obama saw the risk this posed, and he wasn't alone. As described by NYT legal editorial writer Dorothy Samuel:
"I was struck by how many people I spoke with, including friends, acquaintances and former clerks, felt [Ginsburg] should have resigned at the time and that her staying on was terribly self-centered — a view I share."
If, in those 6 years, RBG had gone from healthy looking 60 year old to cancer-diagnosed 66 year old, then yes, I would be more lenient on her. But the risk was obvious in 2013 and she ignored it. Now anybody who wanted a liberal court, myself included, pays the price.
Moreover, RBG had a duty to do the calculus and realize it might be 6 years, even 10, before another opportunity arose where she could step down. In 2013, it wasn't clear who the 2016 nominees would be and who was likely to win. If Republicans won in 2016, and even in 2020 too, she would be over 90 years old by the time she could be replaced. There's no excuse for her refusal to consider that risk - the only person who benefited from her staying was herself, and that remains a giant mark on her career.
>People don't get to the top in politics by avoiding all high-risk actions, and sometimes those blow up.
Which is precisely why pressure, criticism, shame, etc must be deployed when octogenarians like RBG and Biden put their ego ahead of the good of the country.
I swear I wrote another comment here earlier...is there "moderation" going on here?
The Rationalists trapped in the simulation, with perhaps one or two seeing somewhat of a glimpse out:
https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/1dysnfu/the_fate_of_democracy_isnt_a_decision_for_one_man/
We are doomed if this is the peak of intelligence on this planet.
It would be helpful if you made an actual argument or were specific in any way with your criticism. That comment section is filled with a wide spectrum of perspectives. I honestly have no idea what your subtext is here.
Rationalists are not rational, due to (least) their methods.
So you linked to a reddit comment section and said "these people aren't rational". Welcome to the internet. Thanks for your contribution. Fitting right in.
And you formed a conclusion based upon a heuristic based interpretation of that action.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_It_Like_to_Be_a_Bat%3F
Someone should write a "What is it like to be a Normie?" essay, *because I would really like to know what You People's experience is like*.
A decent start:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/psychology-normative-cognition/
It's not clear to me how this is related to my original post. While I want to foster conversation here, please keep comments related to the original topic. I'm fine if the discussion moves into related topics, but the connection needs to be made clear.
It is regarding perception, upon which this whole reality thing sits. It's a pretty big deal, but not something that can be discussed in polite company (and we're surprised everything is such a mess lol).
RBG is a complicated example, as there was a stretch of SIX YEARS where she basically couldn't retire due to politics (Trump + last two years of Obama). It's really quite a big request to factor that into a time to retire decision. Maybe it was necessary, but do recognize the magnitude of it. Biden ended up in a somewhat similar predicament. The time to step down was last year at latest, so there could be competitive Democratic primaries. Now it's too late in practice. People don't get to the top in politics by avoiding all high-risk actions, and sometimes those blow up.
While I acknowledge that it's hard to know what will happen over 6 years, I don't view that as exculpatory at all for RBG.
Obama, among others, gently tried to work toward getting RBG to step down in 2013. At the time, she was 80 years old and had already had two bouts with cancer. Obama saw the risk this posed, and he wasn't alone. As described by NYT legal editorial writer Dorothy Samuel:
"I was struck by how many people I spoke with, including friends, acquaintances and former clerks, felt [Ginsburg] should have resigned at the time and that her staying on was terribly self-centered — a view I share."
If, in those 6 years, RBG had gone from healthy looking 60 year old to cancer-diagnosed 66 year old, then yes, I would be more lenient on her. But the risk was obvious in 2013 and she ignored it. Now anybody who wanted a liberal court, myself included, pays the price.
Moreover, RBG had a duty to do the calculus and realize it might be 6 years, even 10, before another opportunity arose where she could step down. In 2013, it wasn't clear who the 2016 nominees would be and who was likely to win. If Republicans won in 2016, and even in 2020 too, she would be over 90 years old by the time she could be replaced. There's no excuse for her refusal to consider that risk - the only person who benefited from her staying was herself, and that remains a giant mark on her career.
>People don't get to the top in politics by avoiding all high-risk actions, and sometimes those blow up.
Which is precisely why pressure, criticism, shame, etc must be deployed when octogenarians like RBG and Biden put their ego ahead of the good of the country.