I mean, right now the best we can do is just notice that a politician said A, and then did not-A; said B, and then did not-B; said C, and then did not-C… on and on and on. But I guess when the politician says Z, without a special tech gizmo that goes beep, can anyone possibly be expected to predict they will then do not-Z?
I guess my main point is that I think it’s easy to rationalise why people might be making subtle distinctions on how precisely the guy who was caught lying isn’t quite the same as a guarantee that they will keep lying, but also it’s not very likely that’s what’s going on vs simply “people doggedly compartmentalise away all evidence against their assumed conclusion in which they invested their identity”.
As for 2), consider for example the Brexit campaign promising £350M a week for the NHS. This nominally was written on the side of a bus, not uttered by any one specific politician—but Boris Johnson supported the same campaign, was a member of the org, and got photo op’d in front of that bus. None of that happened or was remotely possible, of course, even when Johnson himself got to be PM and deliver Brexit himself. Was he blamed for it and immediately lost support over it? Not really. He eventually did lose support, but over unrelated things, after several blunders that alienated most of everyone during COVID.
There is observably an inertia—people refuse to believe their idols have lied, or rationalise why lying was the correct thing, for a long time before admitting that actually maybe their idols are a bit shit. This happens indeed a lot with politicians and it’s a far more parsimonious explanation. Yes, maybe eventually the lies do catch up—it happens sometimes for sure—but that’s usually after plenty of time has passed for harm to be done, and by then the next grifter is ready to pick up the torch.
I mean, right now the best we can do is just notice that a politician said A, and then did not-A; said B, and then did not-B; said C, and then did not-C… on and on and on. But I guess when the politician says Z, without a special tech gizmo that goes beep, can anyone possibly be expected to predict they will then do not-Z?
No offense, I feel you’re just making the same argument Adele made, again?
And I feel my reply above is directly engaging with her argument.
So could you respond to my 3 points instead?
Edit: And also not being very charitable while you do that. Like, I feel you’re accusing me of fetishizing technology or something like that.
I guess my main point is that I think it’s easy to rationalise why people might be making subtle distinctions on how precisely the guy who was caught lying isn’t quite the same as a guarantee that they will keep lying, but also it’s not very likely that’s what’s going on vs simply “people doggedly compartmentalise away all evidence against their assumed conclusion in which they invested their identity”.
As for 2), consider for example the Brexit campaign promising £350M a week for the NHS. This nominally was written on the side of a bus, not uttered by any one specific politician—but Boris Johnson supported the same campaign, was a member of the org, and got photo op’d in front of that bus. None of that happened or was remotely possible, of course, even when Johnson himself got to be PM and deliver Brexit himself. Was he blamed for it and immediately lost support over it? Not really. He eventually did lose support, but over unrelated things, after several blunders that alienated most of everyone during COVID.
There is observably an inertia—people refuse to believe their idols have lied, or rationalise why lying was the correct thing, for a long time before admitting that actually maybe their idols are a bit shit. This happens indeed a lot with politicians and it’s a far more parsimonious explanation. Yes, maybe eventually the lies do catch up—it happens sometimes for sure—but that’s usually after plenty of time has passed for harm to be done, and by then the next grifter is ready to pick up the torch.