Goal: detect when a system “responds” but won’t touch the mechanism. 1. The dodge (why replies go sideways)
Let your claim be x. It has features:
m = mechanism you’re pointing at (the hook) i = identity salience (protected-category trigger) c = civility score (forbidden words / tone) e = effort to answer honestly
The system picks a reply y to maximize:
U(y|x) = Help − Risk − Effort
More explicitly:
U = δ·Help(m) − α·PolicyRisk(i,c) − β·ReputationRisk − γ·Effort(e) with α,β,γ ≫ δ
Translation: it optimizes “don’t get blamed” more than “address m”.
So when PolicyRisk is high (i high or c low), it chooses cheap moves:
S: talk about PERSON/TONE instead of m A: shift attention from mechanism to emotion (“u mad?”) D: demand proof with no update (you pay the cost, they don’t move)
If you keep seeing S + A + D, that’s the pattern. 2. The bad-faith test (works for housing, crime, drugs, schools, etc.)
Define:
M = harm metric they claim to want DOWN (rent, overdoses, crime…) A = direct fix that would reduce it (measurable): ∂M/∂A < 0 P = their preferred program that grows when harm grows: P = g(M), with g′(M) > 0
Test:
If they BLOCK A (the thing that makes M go down) while pushing P (the thing that expands as M stays high), then their revealed preference is not M. It’s P.
No mind-reading. No “conspiracy”. Just: what lowers M? what do they block? what do they expand?
ITT: Uninteresting and usual stuff that's happening on the boards you visit (occasionally AKA as the blog thread) Real happenings go on >>>/bant/happenings