Talk:The Lincoln Project

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon politics USA.svg

This United States politics related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Steelbrain.png

Missionality[edit]

This doesn't seem missional. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 18:28, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

They have recently been exposed as covering up sexual harassment from their ranks, actively antagonized the former president, and have promised explicitly to target GOP members who supported the 45th president, promising to become a fixture of American politics. What isn't missional about it?-RipCityLiberal (talk) 20:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Checking back in to say that yeah, you're right now that I see more of it. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 23:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you sir, I appreciate the support. If you think anything else is necessary before moving it to the main space, I would appreciate it.RipCityLiberal (talk) 18:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
@DuceMoosolini Could you clarify your ideas concerning the missionality of political organizations? We are supposed to: 1. Analyze and refute pseudoscience and the anti-science movement; 2. Document the full range of crank ideas; 3. Explore authoritarianism and fundamentalism; 4. Analyze and criticize how these subjects are handled in the media.
I don't see sexual harassment, for example, as falling under any of those categories when considered as a personal failing of an individual. Of course exceptions are made where needed. I don't state that as an objection, but as an example of an unwritten extension of the missionality construct. I find the trolley problems of politics interesting, and nowhere in heaven or earth are there more crank ideas than in politics. IMO, with respect to the fight against crank political ideas, the LP deserve an honorable mention. UncleKrampus (talk) 16:13, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm not gonna lawyer it, but I consider grifting and sexual harassment to be missional topics. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 16:39, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
They are not explicitly missional, but are acceptable to me. Grifting reported by the NY Post, Washington Times and Fox News is of no interest to me. I suppose if you gave them money you might have concerns. If you did, thank you for trying to save the republic!UncleKrampus (talk) 20:33, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Liberal schadenfreude[edit]

@UncleKrampusAs someone whos is plugged into the liberal twitter-sphere I can assure, there are a lot of lefties that were suspicious of the motives of this group, and in the immediate aftermath, were engaging in a bit of "told you so".-RipCityLiberal (talk) 21:53, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't want to say they were stupid, but history shows the enemy of your enemy is your friend. They were stupid. The LP was a big asset in the war against Trumpist politics, whether the douchebag branch of modern liberalism admits it or not. That's OK, I like a big tent. Some of the LP members changed Party Affiliation to Democrat, e.g., Steve Schmidt. Their support was a significant win for Dems. But I am non confrontational. I'll let you make this call.UncleKrampus (talk) 04:03, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
@UncleKrampus I'm open to a rewrite of the precise language here. Though I don't think their contributions were that great, i think it's important to highlight there were early suspicions about ethical practices early that paned out for some further left. -RipCityLiberal (talk) 06:19, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm not asking for a rewrite Rip. I just want to point out that I was delighted to discover the LP existed. Well, contributions-wise, they produced seemingly hundreds of commercial advertisements against Trump and his acolytes. I know, I watched a new one every day on YouTube for months before and after the election. To address the ethical practices issue: yes, it can be pointed out that some people had certain moral failings. I don't want to be held to an evaluation of that as such except to say it is a defensible position to believe that a political battle can entail ethical compromises where the devil is on the other side. My issue is as follows: when you see a contingent of the enemy trying to surrender with its hands in the air, it's time to stop shooting. I have been aggressively anti-Trump for decades and I welcome fellow voices at arms. I will say this, if an individual commits a moral transgression, then we say so. IMO that shouldn't tag the organization associated with them as morally ambiguous. This is especially true in politics. For now, I am satisfied to point all this out on the talk page. UncleKrampus (talk) 15:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)