I have pondered how to respond to you and this thread of yours. And the understandable inability of you to actually engage a discussion.
I suppose it becomes more clear with this post.

You are not trying to solve the questions, but advocating a broken, albeit powerful,

When you boil Trump (& the consequent Trumpism) down to its essentials at root it is Lying.
Trump has made a life of being a liar.
It is "Trump Rule#1" expressed years ago "Trump is a liar. He does not simply tell lies, he IS a liar. Thus what he does is quintessentially a lie".

Now we are embroiled in an impeachment trial, the consequence of the ultimate Donald Trump lie.
That he won the election.

This is so fundamental a lie, that when pressed, as Trump has done, & married to a demagoguery, as he had utilized to enflame his believers, you get

what we got. A mob. Playing at an insurrection.

All because of a Lie. Propounded by a liar.

Here then is the first brick in the edifice that is the newly submerged & subjugated Republican Party:

Renounce the Founding Lie.

If they will not, then nothing else matters.

The impeachment trial itself is become a farce, not for the lack of an impenetrable prosecution case.
But by the dint and opportunity allowed the structure of the impeachment process, to avoid all and any facts by the simple tactic of embracing, and advancing, a lie.

The Republicans as a Party have subordinated themselves to a Lie.
The Republicans as a Party have accepted as their functional premise for governance and leadership a Liar.

Until these cornerstones of what unifies the Republicans, devoted to their party, and not the country,

💥BOOM💥 Linn Wood!! They can't stop what is coming!
Chief Justice John Roberts must resign today. Over the past several weeks, I have met with a courageous whistleblower who has risked his life to tell you the truth. Jeffrey Epstein arranged for the...
Part 1.1

Survivorship Bias 101

History is written by the victors. But if we exclusively focus on these successes, we allow survivorship bias to distort our understanding of the world.

But what is "survivorship bias" and how does it work?

Here's Survivorship Bias 101!

👇👇👇

1/ First, a few definitions.

Survivorship bias is the logical error of concentrating on survivors (successes) and ignoring casualties (failures).

When we do so, we miss the true "base rates" of survival (the actual probability of success) and arrive at flawed conclusions.

2/ When we completely ignore failures, we lose our ability to correctly identify the differences between successes and failures.

Put simply, exclusively focusing on successes may actually inhibit our ability to identify (and replicate) the actions that led to such success.

3/ Cicero wrote on the topic over 2,000 years ago.

An atheist named Diagoras is shown portraits of people who prayed and were saved from death at sea as proof of God's existence.

Diagoras replies, "I see those who were saved, but where are those painted who were shipwrecked?"

4/ Cicero cuts right to the point - we cannot conclude that prayer led to being saved from the sea if we ignore those who prayed and then drowned.

Survivorship bias can lead to a deeply-flawed understanding of cause-and-effect relationships.

Let's look at some examples.

1) Dreaded thread on why I think the response to postcritique is so vitriolic. Short version: Because literary studies is a discipline in search of an application.

2) Before I go on, I'll say from the outset that many in lit studies explicitly reject the idea that the field *should* have an application. My opinion is that's fine if you want to do book clubs, but if you want an institution you can't ignore that difficult issue. But anyway...

3) The evidence by this point is overwhelming that when lit scholars talk about 'method' we're actually just talking about ourselves: 'ways of reading,' 'how we argue,' 'phenomenology of reading,' etc. etc.

4) David Kurnick nicely illustrates this phenomenon:

5) But none of this is method discussion. Talking about ourselves, how we approach our objects of study, our motives and objectives, our commitments, etc. would be the *beginning* of a method convo in every other discipline. In lit studies it's the *end*, or the whole convo!