this post was submitted on 24 Nov 2024

391 points (99.5% liked)

News

23387 readers

2560 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

391

Trump is running his transition team on secret money (www.nytimes.com)

submitted 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

50 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Summary

Donald Trump’s transition team is raising unlimited funds from undisclosed donors, including foreign nationals, bypassing federal transparency rules by refusing to sign agreements with the Biden administration.

This breaks from tradition, sparking concerns about potential conflicts of interest and influence over the incoming administration.

The team has also failed to enable FBI background checks for appointees and has not submitted an ethics plan required for pre-inauguration access to federal agencies.

Critics warn that this secrecy undermines accountability during the critical handover of power.

Non-paywall link

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I truly don't understand this line of reasoning.

"I can't treat the patient so I'm not gonna tell them about their disease."

[+] [email protected] -1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Are you bending my perfectly apt analogy to insinuate the US is over and to lose hope? Because only you are insinuating anything terminal.

Let me just see what even Google AI says about this obvious fallacy:

The fallacy of arguing that we shouldn't report on issues we can't directly change is often called the "do-nothing fallacy" or "perfectionist fallacy"; it essentially states that because a perfect solution isn't available, we should not report on a problem at all, effectively dismissing important information and ignoring potential avenues for awareness and discussion.

Key points about this fallacy:

Ignoring the value of awareness:

Just because a direct action can't be taken immediately doesn't mean reporting on an issue can't raise public awareness, prompt further investigation, or encourage future policy changes.

Oversimplification of complex issues:

It often ignores the potential impact of public discourse on shaping public opinion and influencing decision-makers.

Potential for silencing important voices:

This fallacy can be used to discourage reporting on issues that may be uncomfortable or politically sensitive.

Damn, good points Google, I absolutely agree.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy

The nirvana fallacy is the informal fallacy of comparing actual things with unrealistic, idealized alternatives. It can also refer to the tendency to assume there is a perfect solution to a particular problem. A closely related concept is the "perfect solution fallacy".

By creating a false dichotomy that presents one option which is obviously advantageous—while at the same time being completely unrealistic—a person using the nirvana fallacy can attack any opposing idea because it is imperfect. Under this fallacy, the choice is not between real world solutions; it is, rather, a choice between one realistic achievable possibility and another unrealistic solution that could in some way be "better".

It is also related to the appeal to purity fallacy where the person rejects all criticism on basis of it being applied to a non ideal case.

"We can't outright fix the problem right now, so we may as well not report on it." Hmm...

Edit: gotta love ninja edits... So now you're saying it's "terminal but treatable and we decided to do nothing"? Why did you back down from just "terminal"? Please restore your original comment. That doesn't break your argument from the fallacy I described above.

Edit 2: now they've deleted their comments. Put em back up, own your fallacy.