First a note for book lovers: Across all of January, the Uplift Storm Trilogy (Brightness Reef, Infinity's Shore & Heaven's Reach) will be on e-book sale for $3.99. Alas apparently not on Kobo or Barnes & Noble. But a crazy good deal on Amazon. Do you want adventure? With some science and great alien races? I got em here for you! And... oh... what savings!
== A fanatical cult keeps growing ==
Christopher F. Rufo recently published "America's Cultural Revolution: How the Radical Left Conquered Everything," arguing that America has been quietly taken over by the ideological heirs of the 1960s radicals, "disguised in benign-sounding language like diversity, equity and inclusion"
There are so many refutations to this bald-faced blather, but the simplest start with:
Who has benefited? Until the first “Supply Side” bills under Reagan, the U.S. middle and working classes shared in every advance in the American economy. Ever since those successive Supply Side ‘reforms’ - first Reagan's and those of Bush and then Trump - working Americans have fallen ever-further behind the top 1%, but especially the aristocrats and inheritance brats of the top 0.01%. Wealth disparities skyrocketed to French Revolution levels. That is, until 2021 – when the Biden+Pelosi bills reversed those trends ... a little.
So who ‘took over’ America, judging by those who benefited? Casino mafiosi, hedge lords, carbon princes, murder sheiks, “ex” commissars in the Kremlin and members of an incestuously parasitical CEO caste.
The 'left’? Puh-lease. Oh, sure, there does exist a far-left wing of ditzy, sanctimony-junky yammerers, bent on trashing their own side's credibility, delighting Foxites who nightly point and cry: "See? ALL liberals are like THAT!!" A lie, but effective...
...at distracting from the disproportionate outcomes of each side. Like the nearly universal rule that the US economy does better during Democratic administrations.
So let me reiterate that not one positive outcome prediction ever made by Supply Side promoters - re deficits or industrial investment or economic growth - ever came true. Not… one… ever. And I have had standing wager offers on the table for a decade.
If any of the followers of Milton Friedman and that ilk had a sliver of dignity (or manhood) or fealty to scientific method, they would eagerly accept my offer of wagers over that devastating assertion. They would try to prove me wrong.
But a cult is a cult! “Trump advisers plot aggressive new tax cuts for second White House term.”
Six thousand years of rule by inheritance brats and high level cheaters never accomplished (combined!) 1% as much as the FDR generation did, by raising up the working class into a prosperous middle class... plus using anti-trust etc to spur fair competition. Adam Smith - who denounced aristocratic cheaters as the main enemies of fair competition - would today be a flaming Democrat.
Mr. Rufo’s entire movement has been taken over and suborned by those casino mafiosi, hedge lords, carbon princes, murder sheiks and “ex” commissars who own the GOP. And who subsidize his yammers.
== How Elites Ate the Social Justice Movement ==
A somewhat less-wrong rightist screed is Fredrik deBoer’s book, “How Elites Ate the Social Justice Movement.” The assertion - in this case somewhat defensible - is that liberal movements seem to be driven nowadays more by sanctimony than by achieving actual, pragmatic outcomes for the poor, or oppressed, or for the Earth. Or for posterity.
“Today,” deBoer writes, “left-activist spaces are dominated by the college-educated, many of whom grew up in affluence and have never worked a day at a physically or emotionally demanding job.... For that reason, these spaces prioritize “the immaterial and symbolic” over “the material and the concrete.”
Dig it folks. As much as it hurts - the guy is generally correct. Liberalism is bleeding away Hispanics and Blacks and many others who are sick of being told what to believe, by smug patrons who should instead be listening.
Indeed, you start to see why the Mad/Treasonous right has survived and even flourished, despite their utterly disproved policies and long-expected demographic collapse.
It also fits and explains the most bizarre-ingrate rightwing trend I have ever seen, a full-court press campaign to discredit the universities that were the topmost investment of the GI Bill generation. The very institutions that actually Made America Great.
Oh, the Confederate madness WILL pass away into discredited insipidity, the way it did in most earlier phases of America’s 250 year ongoing Civil War.
But it would have happened long ago, except for the sanctimony fetishism of our own mad wing.
== Will this too pass? ==
Some things just explain themselves.
Much has been said about the role of fear in propelling our social and political problems. It was much discussed in The Postman, where I projected fear as the last straw that triggered violence and the Great Collapse. Still, hardly anyone – even anthropologists – offer deep perspective on the big tradeoff underlying it all. Closest was Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, which I cite here, in Altruistic Horizons: Our tribal natures, the ‘fear effect’ vs. inclusion… and the end of ideologies.”
“Private jets cause 14 times more pollution than commercial flights. But now momentum is building around the world to rein in billionaires and make them pay for the destruction they're causing. Add your name to demand taxing private jets, and share this widely!”
I would in fact go much farther! There should be a target date for a worldwide convergence to demonstrate at every private jet terminal, with placards shouting Get Back Into First Class! Let’s see them denounce that as ‘commie!’
Of course this is also a result of the apparent determination, by a microencephalic, flattery-lobotomized aristocratic caste, to revive the concept of Class War, that had been thrown in the dustbin by the New Deal reforms. (Engendering a calm and spectacularly productive middle.)
In their drive (though they seem too dumb to realize it) to resurrect Karl Marx, today’s moronic oligarchs actually seem to believe their best path to restoring feudalism will be to wage all-out war against … nerds! Yes, those geeks who know stuff. Those who daily craft miracles and advances that stand a real chance of saving the world.
Alas, the spoiled, prepper-lord oligarchs have an unexpected ally -- Hollywood - whose relentless series of downer stories do not have the salutary effects that I described in Vivid Tomorrows: Science Fiction and Hollywood - warnings that can be acted upon and save us all, as 'self-preventing prophecies.
No, So many of today's movies are despair cult stuff. Take so many recent flicks, like Leave the World Behind, which is all about demolishing all hope or confidence. Attacking even any remaining scintilla of a notion that millions of skilled people might cooperate to save something worth preserving...
...like a civilization that - for all of its flaws - has been very good to us.
201 comments:
1 – 200 of 201 Newer› Newest»...sanctimony-driven activism extolls purity of dogma and proper incantations over incremental progress.
I think we are all doing that to some degree. I wonder if it is a kind of future-shock where we have trouble dealing with the incremental successes that a proving to be effective like nothing before them. It's like we cling to sanctimony because we BELIEVE that it should be the one that works.
I don't mean every individual person is doing it, though. It seems to me that each of our coalitions is (to some degree) though.
Pappenheimer,
That ending for WITNESS IS the happy ending! Heh.
Book saved Rachael's son's life. Rachael saved Book's life. Justice prevailed. Book's departure left the door open for Rachael's suitor to return.
Parents and community members get to avoid social trauma too. Every Amish character knew what a disaster it would be if Book stayed. They also knew (as did she) that Rachael wouldn't fit in among the English. More disaster.
Kids might not see it as a happy ending, but it certainly was the best plausible one. 8)
That story is also a wonderful example of how the ending must be known to the writer before the inciting incident gets sketched out. Saving Rachael's son sets it all in motion.
------
There is a resolving scene at the end of KILN PEOPLE that I think sets up the inciting incident much the same way. Of the books our host has written (and I've read), I suspect this one would be the easiest to adapt to a two hour movie.
If masks come back, one small benefit for me will be that I can once again don my "Doctrine is the Mind-Killer" beauty. I love the quizzical looks it gets.
Dr. Brin:
Marx and the oligarchs are caught in a Seldonian paradox. When the oligarchs take seriously Marx's prediction of mass immiseration ending in class war, then they enact New-Deal-ish reforms to buy off the masses. This works, and Marx's prediction is falsified. But then the oligarchs cease to take Marx's prediction seriously, so they repeal the reforms, and Marx's prediction of mass immiseration tends to become true. Therefore to the oligarchs, Marx is as true a prophet as he is false.
A paradox! For a binary mind, that... does... not... compute... And who has binary minds? Robots, fanatics, idiots and ideologues. But I repeat myself.
Do you think the support to Israel (which plan a few more months of bombing on Gaza) will have a significant detrimental effect on the leftist vote for Biden ?
Akaad:
...significant detrimental effect on the leftist vote for Biden ?
Probably, and in an ironic way. The anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian activists know that Trump will be much worse for Palestinians than any Democrat, but they apparently don't care. They're mad at Biden, the man, and nothing else matters. If they help Trump win, my (meager) consolation prize will be that they'll all feel really bad about what follows in the region.
Who benefits? Netanyahu certainly prefers Trump. Putin, who probably had a voice in Hamas's launching their attack at a particular time, prefers Trump. The Saudis prefer Trump. It's interesting in a bad way to see just who these leftists are willingly being useful idiots for. Seems like another example of what I mentioned yesterday. "Republican policies* make people mad enough to vote Republican."
Last night, pro-Palestinian protesters shut down Chicago's Lake Shore Drive in order to demand "an unconditional cease-fire." What do those words even mean in that order?
* Ok, technically, foreigners like Putin, Netanyahu, and MBS aren't "Republicans", but it's a distinction without a difference.
Has President Biden ever called out Trump by name before? No "Sleepy Joe" here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qL-ergKmXNE
Pappenheimer under previous comments:
Movie endings don't have to be as dramatic as, say, a Marvel flick...but you are right, any story needs a conclusion.
A story's resolution is analogous to a musical piece returning to the home for the key it is being played in.
My younger brother was actually upset that at the end of the Harrison Ford movie "Witness" the big city police detective and the Amish farmwife part ways and, it is implied, never see each other again.
Anyone remember Bruce Willis in Unbreakable? As a comics fan, I enjoyed the concept and most of the film itself, but the ending was...bizarre to say the least:
* The bad guy wins.
* The point seemed to be, "Black men with funny looking heads really are supervillains! Didn't see that coming, didja?"
And to the point of this rant:
* A "happy ending" which completely contradicts what we've just seen described entirely by a page of on-screen text after the action concludes.
I'm curious as to what went on in editorial discussions on that one.
Paul SB: myelin levels are on a downward spiral
Consumption of high quality fat has really tailed off due to cost, cultural shifts, corporate sugarization of the masses, and plain ignorance
Scidata,
On thing to watch with myelin is that statin drugs can interfere with their production. This is why statins can do things that mess with neural function such as causing muscle spasms, dizziness, and a whole host of other side effects.
Most primary care physicians immediately prescribe statins if your cholesterol tests high, but all-mortality data doesn't show much benefit from taking statins, even though they can improve your test numbers.
To avoid statins, u can boost oatmeal in your diet, take fish oil, or take niacinamide supplements as alternatives that help bring down cholesterol #s.
Niacinamide has the secondary benefit of increasing NAD levels, which boosts mitochondria function and helps activate Sirtuin sequences that aid genetic repair mechanisms (which is a key strategy toward slowing down cellular aging).
Fish oil supplements have many benefits, BUT warfarin patients can mess up their INR, so you'd need to consult the medical provider managing your INR before taking them. Primary care physicians will often advise you to take fish oil to warfarin patients without considering it's impact on INR.
PS I'm not a physician, but my father is a retired gastroenterologist. I'm also a guy with two mechanical heart valves, so have some personal experience dealing with diet/warfarin issues.
Pappenheimer redux:
My younger brother was actually upset that at the end of the Harrison Ford movie "Witness" the big city police detective and the Amish farmwife part ways and, it is implied, never see each other again.
In the 70s, a lot of great movies had endings that weren't particularly happy, but were nonetheless satisfying conclusions to what came before. The Exorcist, and The Godfather come to mind. Love Story, A Clockwork Orange, even Summer of 42 and Soylent Green from a certain point of view. The Sting and The Poseidon Adventure resolved happily, but there was real suspense because a happy ending wasn't a guarantied outcome of that era of popular films.
Then, someone in Hollywood decided, "Audiences want happy endings." It didn't matter so much that the resolution was plausible, but only that the good guy got the girl, the bad guy got his comeuppance, and that everything good about the status quo ante was restored (entropy be damned).
Other People's Money with Danny DeVito was likely based on a play or a novel with a touchingly poignant but realistic conclusion. The movie tacked on a final conversation which implausibly purports to restore the company's viability, return it to its founder, and presumably make it possible for the lady and the rogue to excite each other sexually again. Yay!
So in the movie Witness referenced above, the discerning viewer shouldn't have been yearning for an implausible tacked-on ending in which the characters from different worlds become lovers and live happily ever after. To me, the (muted) happy ending was the fact that Ford's character had become simpatico with the Amish enough that it made sense to give him the friendly warning, "Watch out for the English." He was going back to his world, but he was taking some of theirs with him in his soul.
Tolstoy, Asimov, Sartre and many others extoll the virtues of being (and thinking) alone. That's anathema to a cult because isolation often recalibrates one back to first principles and rationality. Cults are like warp drive - they no longer work if the bubble collapses.
...continuing on resolutions...
I've never written for publication, but I feel as if I approach narrative art from the POV of a writer. So to me, a satisfying resolution isn't as much about whether the characters are happy at the end as it is about whether the writer can produce a plausible conclusion to the mess he's dig himself/herself into. I have a theory that suspense in fiction works that way--that the audience simultaneously feels emotions based on the writer's dilemma along with the characters' dilemma, and that the work of fiction "works" best when the two are producing the same emotions in synch.
In the old Adam West Batman for instance, there was never any true suspense over whether the Dynamic Duo would escape their death-traps, but there was actual suspense over "How will the story get them out of this plausibly?" The suspense the viewer feels about the latter is interpreted as suspense over the former. (In the third season, the series jumped the shark by not even pretending to make the resolutions plausible.)
LH 6:43 AM:
Protesting by messing with traffic is "how to lose friends and not influence people".
FWIW, the correct method is to stand en masse by the side of the road, while chanting and making music and holding up signs stating your views and saying "HONK IF YOU AGREE WITH US".
That's if you want to succeed, rather than struggle.
Alfred correctly points out that collection of ballots is more typically done at a church or a hospital or a nursing home to assist people who have difficulty getting themselves to a drop box in person. Or by a family member helping out aging parents and the like. The collector would generally be a trusted individual to the voter. So limiting such collection seems to me to be an exercise in voter suppression.
Larry,
I'm looking at what CAN be done with statutes if they were adopted on a broad scale rather than current small scale practices developed by state jurisdictions that allow voter collections.
One of the reasons that small scale adoption of a particular legal rule might not represent what will happen if the rule became ubiquitous for most US elections is now you get lots of brainpower and resources looking to exploit it.
It's sort of like in the NFL, where if one oddball HS team creates a new offensive system it can be hugely effective, but if it gets introduced in the NFL and has some success, well its a whole other level.
Then you have the brightest defensive coordinators on the planet looking to blow up that concept. Figuring out a system to exploit a rule has little upside if it only helps u win state legislative seats in a few states, vs winning national elections.
Suddenly, deploying the resources to fuel large numbers of boots on the ground canvassers can become "worth it."
In law, you often see gross applications of successful small scale rules after they get widespread adoption.
For example, look what at happened to "sneak and peak" warrants once they became introduced at the federal level.
Sneak and Peek warrants allow law enforcement to break into your home, search, then leave without providing notice until long after the search. Often, they are issued to search your computer or other electronic media that leaves no trace of the break in.
They were part of the 2001 Patriot Act, and were sold as a defense against terrorism. Between 2006-2009, courts issued only 1,700 or so of these warrants.By the 2010s, law enforcement has started using them over 10,000 times pet year. By the 2020s, only a tiny percentage are issued to combat suspected terrorism. Instead, 71% are to investigate narcotics cases. However, under the Patriot Act, they can be issued for MERE SUSPICION OF A MISDEMEANOR.
There are many laws which end up getting used quite differently than small scale trials at the state or municipal level. Look at how RICO gets used today. Often, it has nothing remotely to do with organized crime, which was it's intended purpose when it became Federal law in the early 70s.
Also think about no knock warrants, which were introduced in the 80s as a means to fight drug dealers who were armed to the teeth (think of 80s movie Beverly Hills Cop where police with 6 shooters ended up confronting criminals armed with military grade automatic weapons. The disparity in firepower was played for laughs).
Today, no knock warrants are issued in the hundreds of thousands and are almost routine. Using them in volume has created a number of unfortunate incidents where police get the wrong address and bust into an innocent citizen's home in the middle of the night. If they are a gun owner in particular, it can lead to tragic outcomes.
That whole, "usually happens in church groups" bs smells like PR marketing used to create a bucolic image for a law whose promoters know they will abuse once they get it. Seriously, that's an obviously constructed narrative designed to persuade. Gerry Spence would be proud (an absolute master at constructing argument-by-analogy narratives designed to produce back door emotional biases whichever way he wants the jury to decide).
Larry, the circumstances you mention are clear political spinning which should set off your BS detector. The person who constructed it is lubing u up before screwing you most of the time.
Ask yourself WHY government should have any power to limit vote collection to 10 or any other number.
Alfred, seems to me it's a power well-rooted in the authority of the federal government to regulate federal elections, and state governments to regulate state elections. I'm pretty dang sure it's explicitly granted in the constitution, and exists in most state constitutions for state law.
I see it as somewhat analogous to the rather ubiquitous restrictions on canvassing within so many feet of a polling place.
I'm curious why you see it as an ethical problem whereas canvassing bans outside an in person polling place are routinely accepted by most people.
John Viril:
Sneak and Peek warrants allow law enforcement to break into your home, search, then leave without providing notice until long after the search. Often, they are issued to search your computer or other electronic media that leaves no trace of the break in.
They were part of the 2001 Patriot Act, and were sold as a defense against terrorism.
...
Also think about no knock warrants...
I'm not a fan of either, both of which you acknowledge were rammed down our throats by Republicans in the U.S.A.P.A.T.R.I.O.T Act. I think it's a bugaboo of yours that you think Democrats are just as underhanded, but I'm as unlikely to change your mind about that as you are to change mine.
The person who constructed it is lubing u up before screwing you most of the time.
And the potty mouth doesn't help.
Paradoctor:
Protesting by messing with traffic is "how to lose friends and not influence people".
They're not trying to influence people. They think "the people" already agree with them, and they are showing the government how powerful and threatening they can be when they don't get their way.
FWIW, the correct method is to stand en masse by the side of the road, while chanting and making music and holding up signs stating your views and saying "HONK IF YOU AGREE WITH US".
Heh. Whenever a flock of geese fly overhead making loud honking noises, I think, "They must really love Jesus."
Paradoc expressed the Marxian Seldon Paradox very well. Except that Rooseveltean social contracts don’t JUST invite workers into the middle class, in order to squelch their revolutionary zeal. They also open universal educational opportunities via universities. In China this feeds into a standard meritocratic pyramid of useful, obedient boffins. In the west it led to the aristocrats having more interesting colleagues and marriage partners… but also competitors who – like some techie lords – must then be lured into joining the cabal. I portray this in EXISTENCE, where the process does wind up increasing the IQ of oligarchy…
That works, somewhat, but the perpetual flow of bright new elites is dangerous to Old Money…
… and hence we see the roots of today’s right wing memes of hatred toward universities.
Akaad one thing will affect both the USA and the middle east situation… if Vlad Putin – who ordered up the Hamas attack on his birthday – remains in command of a desperate and ruthless neo-KGB next fall. Hence the GOP is desperate to save him.
LH The Unbreakable flicks required directors trademark TWIST.
JV thanks for info. And good luck with all that. And did you see the use I made of warfarin in SUNDIVER?
Re electoral stuff. I can see some discomfort with huge use of mail-in ballots. I’d be willing to negotiate compromise on that… if there’s a compensatory expanding of Voting Day with a national one day holiday (with pay) for every person with an I VOTED receipt.
But no one has a right to lecture anyone about electoral cheating when their cult ensures unlimited dark money and unlimited gerrymandered stealing of the effective voting power of 50 million Americans.
Dr Brin:
LH The Unbreakable flicks required directors trademark TWIST.
I never saw any sequels. Probably too busy with a new baby at the time.
My beef with the original wasn't the "surprise" that the bad guy was behind the plot, but with that strange text epilogue at the very end that tried to make it ok because the bad guy was taken down after all--just not on screen. No better (to me) than if Love Story had ended with text that read, "As it turned out, she was saved from death and cured by a miraculous medical advancement. The two were reunited and lived happily ever after."
Re electoral stuff. I can see some discomfort with huge use of mail-in ballots. I’d be willing to negotiate compromise on that… if there’s a compensatory expanding of Voting Day with a national one day holiday (with pay) for every person with an I VOTED receipt.
Mail-in ballots carry a risk of cheating in private. But the problem they are meant to overcome is also a risk--intimidation at the polling places, long lines, mechanical problems with voting machines on the day, inclement weather. Neither is a perfect situation in a vacuum.
The difference between the parties is that Democrats want it to be easier to vote, and Republicans want it to be harder. Republicans would claim that they want it to be harder to cheat (and that Dems want it to be easier to cheat), but scratch one and you'll find that Republicans' idea of "cheating" is "voting for the other party."
This post disappeared to Bolivia this morning. Trying again to see if it sticks this time. Not holding my breath.
* * *
Pappenheimer redux:
My younger brother was actually upset that at the end of the Harrison Ford movie "Witness" the big city police detective and the Amish farmwife part ways and, it is implied, never see each other again.
In the 70s, a lot of great movies had endings that weren't particularly happy, but were nonetheless satisfying conclusions to what came before. The Exorcist, and The Godfather come to mind. Love Story, A Clockwork Orange, even Summer of 42 and Soylent Green from a certain point of view. The Sting and The Poseidon Adventure resolved happily, but there was real suspense because a happy ending wasn't a guarantied outcome of that era of popular films.
Then, someone in Hollywood decided, "Audiences want happy endings." It didn't matter so much that the resolution was plausible, but only that the good guy got the girl, the bad guy got his comeuppance, and that everything good about the status quo ante was restored (entropy be damned).
Other People's Money with Danny DeVito was likely based on a play or a novel with a touchingly poignant but realistic conclusion. The movie tacked on a final conversation which implausibly purports to restore the company's viability, return it to its founder, and presumably make it possible for the lady and the rogue to excite each other sexually again. Yay!
So in the movie Witness referenced above, the discerning viewer shouldn't have been yearning for an implausible tacked-on ending in which the characters from different worlds become lovers and live happily ever after. To me, the (muted) happy ending was the fact that Ford's character had become simpatico with the Amish enough that it made sense to give him the friendly warning, "Watch out for the English." He was going back to his world, but he was taking some of theirs with him in his soul.
When my daughter was kindergarten age or so, one of her friends in the neighborhood called her up and told her, "We have a cat! Her name is Sprinkles!" A little while later, the same girl called back to admit that she hadn't really acquired a cat. She had just been kidding. Later at their house, they really did have a new cat named Sprinkles after all. The friend explained that she had made the second call so that my daughter would be surprised by the cat.
That's how the surprise climax of Unbreakable struck me. The fact that the black man with the deformity and the big head was in fact the villain was only a "surprise" because the idea had already been explicitly dismissed as cliché earlier in the movie's dialogue.
And the potty mouth doesn't help.
Since I now know it offends you, I won't use it again. I tend to think vulgarity is appropriate whenever political spinners use nauseatingly puritanical metaphors to distort issues.
But no one has a right to lecture anyone about electoral cheating when their cult ensures unlimited dark money and unlimited gerrymandered stealing of the effective voting power of 50 million Americans.
Dr. Brin, u do realize I don't consider myself a cult member, right? My very right wing family considers me distressingly left wing (which I find amusing).
I don't rail against Bush Sr. or Donald Trump simply bc I wasn't politically engaged during their presidencies.
With Trump, I didn't much pay attention to the 30@6 election bc I was far more invested in the Philippine election. When Duterte won ( which was a disaster), i was still.locked on Philippine politics. Late in the Trump presidency, I was focused on my health---had a lot to learn about heart health. Didn't feel any need to follow too closely to know how to vote.
During Bush Sr. I was reading academic papers and chasing girls. Thus don't want to make proclamations about a time when I only had surface knowledge. I did read quite a bit about the Gulf War I military campaign bc i read a lot of military history as a kid.
That campaign was historic. Can't recall any other engagement in human history with so many troops engaged ane so few casualties for the winning side.
Just a stunning win. Though, that on the field success doesn't seem to be a good way to evaluate that admin.
John Viril:
Since I now know it offends you,...
It's not so much about my delicate ears. It's just not persuasive.
With Trump, I didn't much pay attention to the 30@6 election bc I was far more invested in the Philippine election. When Duterte won ( which was a disaster), ...
You realize that Trump admires Duterte's ability to kill both criminals and political opponents? That's one reason I'm more concerned about restoring him and his enablers to power than about what Democrats might some day do with power they don't have.
JV I don't deem you a cultist!
Your pokes here are well-within the range of someone who knows that one side in this episode has gone mad... but who has serious questions if the other side might be bipolar, let's say.
Such questions are welcome! Even if they will irritate a majority here and get pounced-on, when wrong.
JV thanks for info. And good luck with all that. And did you see the use I made of warfarin in SUNDIVER?
I did read Sundiver back when I was around 17 (though it was my sister that bought that series. She originally wanted to be a marine biologist and she really liked Startide Rising. She was a bigger fan of your work than I was.)
Of course, at 17, I wasn't thinking much about warfarin, so I didn't really recall that. Back then, I was blissfully unaware I'd ever develop leaking heart valves.
As for the heart valves, I'm about the most robust double heart valve patient you'll ever meet. Blew them away in cardiac rehab when they wanted me to start with 10lb dumbells and I dropped to the floor and popped off a dozen one-arm pushups, then stacked their leg press machine on the first day (it was a rehab machine which only went up to 220 lbs. ).
As inevitable as Thanos...
https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2024/Items/Jan08-4.html
...
The reality is that Democratic voters and Republican voters want different things and their candidates give each group what it wants. Democrats care about policy issues (e.g., abortion and democracy) and Biden's positions are at the least acceptable to almost all Democrats. Sure, progressives would prefer Bernie, but he's not running and there is nothing Biden has done that angers progressives. They are just disappointed that he didn't do more, although many of them realize he was two votes short in the Senate to get more done than he did.
In contrast, for the most part, what a lot of Republican voters want more than anything is to "own the libs," to make their blood boil, and to punish them for treating them like a bunch of dumb yahoos. Policy is largely secondary. Yes, many care about abortion and immigration, but all the Republican candidates agree on these policy issues. The only one who really drives the libs into paroxyms of rage is Trump. That is why they the base is sticking with him.
So despite everybody saying they don't want Trump vs. Biden, Republicans really do want Trump and Biden is the only Democrat with anywhere near majority support, so we are going to get Trump vs. Biden.
Greetings all. Busy times. I did see Locum resolving to be less angry in a recent thread. I suppose I really should resolve to be less Contrary but that would be ironic.
I'm going to apologize here for being honest, the self imposed pressure to post long essays about once a week does tend to make the "above the fold" CB read like sections are Cut and Paste. Various phrases - invocations really - keep turning up almost often. When considering a meander over I say to myself "Well, get out the old BRINGO card.."
But among the usual stuff about Confederates, Jibbering, Wagers, Hastert, and so forth there is yet that worth considering. For instance:
"..casino mafiosi, hedge lords, carbon princes, murder sheiks and “ex” commissars.."
This got me thinking about the nature of the casino business, and the role of gambling in general in societies. That the political orientation of Vegas Casino owners leans right is true, although A) they'd give money to anyone who will help them out and B) A currently prominent Republican figure is a former casino owner. One of the guys. Oh, there is one gal in the top five Vegas owners too.
But what is the Casino industry? I guess its a number of things. A substantial employer, at least in Nevada.
And an entertainment media. I've reluctantly been to Vegas a few times and there are plenty of happy drunks basically enjoying FESTIVAL! Not entirely different from the wider entertainment industry, which of course has a very different political polarity.
As to organized gambling, I have little time for it. But consider Powerball and various state lotteries. Also means by which people, and generally less affluent ones, can be separated from their money. But in many cases these profits go to causes you'd probably approve of. Natural resources for instance.
Anyway, just Monday morning musings. But there is this. I can choose to buy a ticket or spin a roulette wheel. Or to attend a show with dancin' gals in feathers or go to a movie. My choice. Another "industry" that has been much in the news - education - gives me less in the way of options. I have to pay taxes. And as a supporter of public schools I have minimal sway in matters of curriculum.
I'd say the educational system is in that sense a more important thing for society to scrutinize. And in legitimate ways - test scores, etc - it is being found wanting.
Tacitus
@Tacitus,
Please understand, it's not your contrary opinions that some of us find...tiring. It's the obligatory "You all hate me, but..." prefacing. Which you did not do this time, so I'm sure Dr Brin will continue to tell you you are welcome here.
On "casino mafiosi", I think you're focusing on the wrong word.
Alfred Differ said...
""...sanctimony-driven activism extolls purity of dogma and proper incantations over incremental progress."
I think we are all doing that to some degree. I wonder if it is a kind of future-shock where we have trouble dealing with the incremental successes that a proving to be effective like nothing before them. It's like we cling to sanctimony because we BELIEVE that it should be the one that works.
I don't mean every individual person is doing it, though. It seems to me that each of our coalitions is (to some degree) though."
Yep. I'd guess it has to do with the fact that every coalition includes folks ranging from moderate to extreme, at least any that has been around for more than a few months. But it's complicated, much like gene flow around the ring of a group of ring species (which all real life examples of are much messier than the clean concept, i.e. there does not appear to be any true ring species).
In case anyone is interested, there are at least two posts by Alfred at the top of these comments and one by me further on (beginning "Pappenheimer Redux") which were not visible--at least to me--yesterday. If the same is true for you, go back up and read them if you feel like it.
At least two of the formerly-missing posts were about the movie Witness. Coincidence?
Alfred Differ:
Kids might not see it as a happy ending, but it certainly was the best plausible one. 8)
I wrote a whole post yesterday--it promptly disappeared but it's back up there now--about how un-satisfying an implausible happy ending can be.
Maybe the terminology is wrong. We readers/viewers shouldn't be looking for a mere happy ending, but a satisfying ending. And plausibility is a necessary condition for that.
Required viewing from Fareed Zakaria:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/the-world-sees-what-america-does-not-fareed-explains/vi-AA1mADEs?ocid=msedgntp&pc=HCTS&cvid=b082537104d74710808fee920e189d58&ei=16
"The world sees what America does not. Fareed explains."
Excellent essay - especially the part as to why Nicki Haley is wrong about the so called "good old days".
Indeed, al of us who lived through the 70s know that the 70s sucked (I'm surprised that Fareed didn't mention disco).
So what is the source of our discontent? Why is everyone so pissed off if we are doing so well?
Its a question I've asked repeatedly in the context of how incredible the economy is doing under Biden.
Its a number of reasons, and yep, they are entirely the fault of the Right:
Racist fears of white people being a minority soon that gave birth to White Christian Nationalism as the force that now controls the GOP
If those were Scandinavians coming over the Rio Grande Texans would love them
Fears of Biden's age are really just fears of a black woman becoming president
Anti-wokism is mostly indulged in by people who have no idea what "woke" actually means
Misogynistic "pro-life" (someone who was truly pro-life would care about kids after they were born) attitudes towards women are also driven by a fall in white birth rates and Tucker Carlson's racist "Great Replacement Theory" (fortunately, this has triggered a backlash by Women which will cost the GOP the election this year)
The economic gutting of rural and small town America by greedy corporations searching for cheap exploitable overseas labor in order to maximize CEO bonuses
Which is the source of our obscene wealth inequality and resultant deaths of opportunity and social mobility
Crackpot conspiracy theories fed by internet trolls
Brainwashing by Fox News, social media algorithms that make money by feeding rage and fear, and other Right Wing propaganda sources.
We haven't recovered from the psychological damage done to society by the pandemic and the associated Right Wing conspiracy theories.
Right Wing loathing of gays and gay marriage.
Ignorance and anti-science bias fostered by fanatical Right Wing fundy religions (there is no difference between denying evolution and denying climate change) and the destruction of the concept of objective truth.
I think its safe to say that Trump got elected because we elected a Black president and legalized gay marriage. Trump was the backlash to these two events.
So what do we do?
There is nothing we can do. MAGA cultists are too far gone to be reasoned with. Decades of the Fox News bubble have made them immune to logic, facts and basic decency. No amount of understanding them or empathizing with them will result in them meeting us halfway to embrace and sing kumbaya. MAGA are stupid and evil people and there is no cure for either condition.
So we wait them out, because time is on our side.
MAGA demographics already skewed old, very old
suffer from obesity and poor diets
alcoholism
anti-vaxxer conspiracy theories that led to a spike in republican voter deaths after the vaccines were available
lack of decent health and dental care in rural areas ironically caused by GOP budget cuts
the non stop opioid epidemic driven by big pharma corporate greed
uncontrolled drug use fueled by fentanyl
So they won't be around much longer.
I wish we could help them, but they have to want and accept help. Instead, they have chosen to lash out at a world driven by forces they don't understand.
And its hard to feel sympathy for anyone who walks out of a ten story window because they think gravity is just a theory or a conspiracy by scientists.
DP:
So they won't be around much longer.
From your lips to God's ear. However, the Republican Party was supposed to have been reduced to a regional party around 2008. Instead, they've taken even more control of the reins of power, and are making sure they'll still hold those reins even against voter sentiment.
And its hard to feel sympathy for anyone who walks out of a ten story window because they think gravity is just a theory or a conspiracy by scientists.
Especially when they're pointing a gun at you and saying, "As soon as I prove gravity is a hoax, I'll be back to kill you and everyone you love." If they want to solve the problem by self-Rapturing, I don't feel guilty about not exerting myself to prevent that.
SA:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.com/public/LWACHIG4FJCHTMN3VUWHAYAJW4.jpg&w=916
Agreed that the shock and horror reaction to the rape-y, pedo-y, nihilistic cruelty only pleases the cult. The best reaction is to re-focus the romanticism on space, adventure, and the horizon. Turn grievance into wonder.
And its hard to feel sympathy for anyone who walks out of a ten story window because they think gravity is just a theory or a conspiracy by scientists.
Were it only so easy.
But it's not a ten story window but more like a ten-foot cliff, where most of them only injure themselves (although some die), and then they blame us for their injuries, because otherwise they would have to admit to being wrong. :(
And what they do with that angst is the problem...
Misogynistic "pro-life" (someone who was truly pro-life would care about kids after they were born)
DP,
This is a logically flawed argument. Basically, hurling the misogynist "they hate children bc they don't agree with our social policy" argument breaks down to a dressed up ad hominem.
Just because you prove Adolph Hitler is evil, doesn't preclude him from making a valid argument. In more recent terms, just because Harvey Weinstein professed to support feminist positions in no way invalidates feminist scholarship.
Arguing RW pro-lifers are really misogynists does nothing to refute their pro-life assertions, no matter how effectively you whip up hatred against them.
John Viril:
Arguing RW pro-lifers are really misogynists does nothing to refute their pro-life assertions,
"Misogynists" might not be the most correct word, but right-wingers' positions on abortion do make them appear more interested in exerting control over women than in caring for the life of the unborn.
+ Trying to criminalize birth control.
+ Preventing surgical procedures to remove a dead fetus
+ Insisting that their pwn pregnant mistresses get abortions (even to the extent of "roofing" the unsuspecting woman with mifepristone)
Misogynists" might not be the most correct word, but right-wingers' positions on abortion do make them appear more interested in exerting control over women than in caring for the life of the unborn.
+ Trying to criminalize birth control.
+ Preventing surgical procedures to remove a dead fetus
+ Insisting that their pwn pregnant mistresses get abortions (even to the extent of "roofing" the unsuspecting woman with mifepristone)
Larry,
These argument may be more effective at establishing RW pro-lifers as villains and hypocrites, but still fails to refute their pro-life positions.
At best, all u have achieved is to make more effective ad hominem attacks.
John Viril:
At best, all u have achieved is to make more effective ad hominem attacks.
Not at all. The bit about the mistresses demonstrates that they don't really think the life of the innocent fetus is more important than the worldly concerns of the adults whose choices created that life. And my other two examples show that their agenda is something other than championing the life of an innocent child. What does birth control or removal of an already-dead fetus have to do with the rights of pre-babies?
I get what you're saying--that the pro-life argument has merit no matter the character of the individual mouthing it. The problem I see is that it is only half an argument. "Fetuses are human", with all that that entails. It ignores the fact that women are also human with their own set of rights. It does nothing to resolve the conflict when the woman's rights and the fetus's rights are in opposition. The pro-life arguments claim solutions for that conflict, but when the ones making the argument demonstrate by their own choices that they can't live by those solutions, then they've hardly persuaded anyone else to do so.
It's like when priests insist that a man can live a healthy life and stay celibate. The argument is more persuasive before you discover that the man telling you that has to bugger young children or triste with a mistress while no one is looking. While his words may have merit regardless of the messenger, the fact that the messenger himself can't do what he's telling you is doable throws that conclusion into doubt.
John, Larry, DP
By appropriating the "pro-life" label the latter movement creates a loaded argument (When did you stop beating your wife?) that connotes anyone outside the pro-life domain position must support anti-life, pro-death.
If someone said, "I am pro-life!" and when asked to espouse their beliefs, recited the Monty Python satire:
"Every sperm is sacred
Every sperm is great
If a sperm is wasted
God gets quite irate!"
maybe fewer people would feel the compulsion to attack the literal conflicts between what the pro-life domain name says, what it stands for and the actions of certain persons within the domain.
Tacitus I always say you are welcome here. But seriously, you need to step outside yourself and hear yourself, some time:
“I'm going to apologize here for being honest…”. Puh-lease. We are SO not worthy!
“Confederates, Jibbering, Wagers, Hastert, and so forth…” Okay so 30% of that is venting on MY front porch like an old man shouting at clouds. And another equal amount repeating blatant truths that no one else is saying that that I’ll keep repeating till SOMEONE out there notices and uses what ought to be great tools against capering, rabid-frothing idiocy and outright treason.
Don’t like the ‘wagers’ thing? Then offer your own asserted method by which we can get ostriches like you to take accountability for the lies you bury your heads in. There ought to be consequences for an otherwise intelligent man refusing to either disprove the human generated CO2 is chaning the ocean acidity in ways that are on trajectory to murdering our children…
…or else confronting that there is a major, existential reason to disown the cult that once was the party of Lincoln & Eisenhower. Just MOCKING the wagers thing is a playground evasion of that method to apply accountability. I’ll accept anything that would work as well,
“This got me thinking about the nature of the casino business, and the role of gambling in general in societies. That the political orientation of Vegas Casino owners leans right is true, although A) they'd give money to anyone who will help them out and B) A currently prominent Republican figure is a former casino owner. One of the guys. Oh, there is one gal in the top five Vegas owners too.”
There you go, all slippery on us. Dig it, fellah. The current GOP EXISTS ENTIRELY as a tool for an oligarchy that gets utter obedience. ALL of the casino mafiosi promote MAGA with floods of $$$ much of it straight from Sheldon Adelson’s improbably profitable Macao casinos, laundering funds from you know who.
But go ahead, who else? Putin, hedge lords, inheritance brats, oh, you will shrug off how they utterly controlled the GOP agenda for 20 years. No, democrats are WORSE because a toxic crust of campus bullies screeches silly things!
“I'd say the educational system is in that sense a more important thing for society to scrutinize. And in legitimate ways - test scores, etc - it is being found wanting.”
Yes, sure, and it is one of half a dozen areas where negotiations called ‘politics’ could find blended, compromise approaches, starting with an end to Supply Side tax grift so we can pay teachers. But sure, some Bill Maher stuff, too.
But it is YOUR cult/party that made it official policy to kill American Politics, as with the never-ever negotiate Hastert Rule. Yes, him. A living monster your party elevated to the top. How many times will that happen before you wake up?
Re Fareed's Question About Why America Doesn't Recognize Its Strengths:
1. His end points dont match what the RW conservatives consider "the good old days ."
He goes back 50 years to 1974. RWs don't consider the "the good old days." RWs miss late 50s early 60s (before civil rights and sexual revolution). 1974 makes today look pretty good.
2. The headline economic growth looks good, but I suspect it's polarized growth. During the recent holiday season, many sources reported the worst food shortages and food insecurity they have seen in generations. How does that possibly square with a thriving economy?
If the growth is polarized, bad at the bottom/good for the affluent class. With the retirement of the larger baby boom gen, lots of management position are opening up, which means all kinds of educated people are getting pushed up the management ladder faster than the recent past.
At the bottom, a flood of undocumenteds (roughly 12 to 15 million in the last 4 yrs) are making it rough for low skill employees. Add in that receding inflation hasn't spread to the grocery store (grocery inflation is still lagging the headline number decline), the bottom is still not doing that well.
3. Ideologues in the culture wars are still pushing the idea that US society is built upon systemic oppression. Since most younger citizens see this as true, it's hard to feel America is going in the right direction. Conversely, RW conservatives feel unjustly vilified as systemic oppressors. Both sides of the culture wars are yielding the sense of social decay and failure.
4. Agree that we still haven't overcome the psychological impacts of mass lockdowns
5.Difficulty young people are having buying houses and moving out of their parents house. Many are weighed down by massive school debt and high interest rates compared to he recent past. College cost increases are absurd, especially since they haven't "improved the product" in any substantial way.
6. Polarization in the mating game: social media apps like tlTinder have turned relationship formation in to a massive game of pareto's rule. The apparent availability and the logistical ability to reach huge numbers of people, have pushed mating aspirations to the top of the food chain.
That's wonderful if you're among the desired few, but makes most people feel inadequate. Stuff isn't going to make u very happy if your personal life is filled with a sense of relationship failure.
7. Media blight: mass media has always had the effect of making the abnormal seem commonplace---thus screwing with our perception of what is achievable.
Someone becomes a media sensation bc the story is unusual. Yet, bc of the flood of mass media, that thing that becomes a story bc it is unusual SEEMS commonplace. Thus, "the rest of us" get frustrated bc of our inability to "look like that" or become a high achiever with multimillions at a young age. We think those outcomes are far more common than they are bc we "see" them everywhere. Our phones, computers, and social media apps have made media consumption insane---with a concurrent increased distortion in perceptions.
Just some guesses by me. Don't have data to back them up.
JV... regarding the nostalgia for the 1950s, few things prove utter historical ignorance - even insanity - more toroughly.
Please read this and then come back with that stuff:
https://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2011/10/was-1957-america-better-than-today.html?
" During the recent holiday season, many sources reported the worst food shortages and food insecurity they have seen in generations. How does that possibly square with a thriving economy?"
3 reasons (1) the GOP rescinded the Child Tax Credit boost. (2) we have rising standards. (3) there are cultists on the left, too. Their religion is to denounce anything like good news.
Actually you make a fair point with : " Ideologues in the culture wars are still pushing the idea that US society is built upon systemic oppression. Since most younger citizens see this as true, it's hard to feel America is going in the right direction. Conversely, RW conservatives feel unjustly vilified as systemic oppressors. Both sides of the culture wars are yielding the sense of social decay and failure."
"Difficulty young people are having buying houses and moving out of their parents house. Many are weighed down by massive school debt and high interest rates compared to he recent past. College cost increases are absurd, especially since they haven't "improved the product" in any substantial way."
All true... and yet ignores the biggest fact. TRILLIONS$$$ in Supply Side grifts for aristocracy were not invested in productive 'supply' as promised. (The current manufacturing boom is entirely from the 2021 Pelosi bills.) As Adam Smith said, the aristos poured most of those trillions into 'rentier" rent-seeking properties... and one type is snapping up the US housing stock with cash purchases that care nothing about interest rates.
Step up and bet $$$ on that. And tell me where you see sklyrocketing wealth disparities leading.
By appropriating the "pro-life" label the latter movement creates a loaded argument (When did you stop beating your wife?) that connotes anyone outside the pro-life domain position must support anti-life, pro-death
Slim moldie, I'm not trying to create a framing bias in favor of the rw position on abortion. I just typically refer to each side by their preferred term, thus I use pro-life and pro-choice
JV... regarding the nostalgia for the 1950s, few things prove utter historical ignorance - even insanity - more toroughly.
Dr. Brin, I'm acutely aware of the shortcomings of the 50's. In fact, I largely"buy" the lw counter-argument that the 50s are only wonderful if u were a white male.
My Filipino father came to the US in 1956 and struggled with "I don't want that Jap Dr." for many years. Even so, the very fact that he WAS a Dr. meant he was far better off than most people of color.
My parents got married in 1960. At that time , there was a state statute in Missouri that banned an Asian from marrying a Caucasian. It did get declared unconstitutional a few years later, but does reflect the times.
My desperately poor grandparents didn't care, they were happy my mom was able to "land" a Dr. (even if he looked funny). Actually, I'm selling them short. Go into my 23 and Me, and I have genes from all over the place---not just my parents generation. I come from a long life of people who clearly didn't give two figs about "race." In short, I'm a real mutt.
I just wanted to point out that Fareed was making something of a strawman argument by claiming their nostalgia was for a different period than what they intend.
Larry,
re: Witness
This time I noticed that I could see the post from my phone but not my browser. Odd. Since it wasn't on-topic I decided to let it go.
And plausibility is a necessary condition for that.
That's what the advice book I'm reading right now points out. The author argues there are usually many possible plausible endings, but ya gotta pick one of them and not some other forced peice of junk. 8)
———
I think this is a big part of what bugs me about "Forgiveness" in the sense of a last minute conversion, a few seconds of repenting, and accepting "Our Lord" into one's heart. If that's what it takes (well meant of course) to avoid eternal torment, then it strikes me as an implausible request of faith.
Children might be able to do that… and be happy with a father who gave such unconditional forgiveness, but adults forgiving each other is MUCH more challenging. We are prickly and judgmental in a way that is necessary to ensure the next generation understands what it means to be a person of good character. Yet… I'm asked to forgive adults of some heinous crime and let God deal with it? Oof. That's a tall order and not at all how I imagine the story working out.
What bugs me, though, is that requesting me to do that is actually a request that I treat these stories as if I was a child. I'm not. Not anymore. Adult Me tosses the script aside and looks for some other plausible story to advance.
Tacitus,
As I recall our host's words regarding Casino Mafiosi I think his attention was on very specific ones with a footprint in Macau.
———
I spent some of my growing up years in Vegas. I was there when the Mafia got uninvited by the Nevada Gaming Commission. That happened during a very special time when the Wall Street Boys started showing up and treating the hotels as legitimate businesses. The region was clearing monthly revenues in the neighborhood of $1B and no one believed that would decrease, so when legit finance showed up the State pivoted.
There is a movie about this time called CASINO. Robert De Niro, Sharon Stone, and others. I know exactly who De Niro's character is supposed to be, so the car bomb at the end of the movie was no surprise. I remember being told that someone put it in backwards which was all that saved the real life guy. Of course, he left town as fast as he could run.
The point of this, though, is that the real guy De Niro's character portrayed understood there was SO MUCH MONEY coming in that they could go legit AND MAKE MORE because the State would defend their interests. Nevada has a known special rule that forbids local LE from cooperating with federal LE on certain issues relating to taxes, but that attitude applied at many levels because Nevada was an oddly Democrat/Libertarian State. The GOP used to have a hard time there because they had too many social conservatives who (oddly enough) disagreed with easy divorces, cheap sex, and gambling.
Things have changed a lot over there, but one very important fact hasn't. You can make @#$@LOADS of money and stay entirely legit. The locals nowadays are kinda insulted if you can't keep your nose clean. Still… there are people over there who are delivering those insults.
———
My brother worked the gaming industry. He was on the security side of operations for one chain that operated highway casinos. You'd see him wearing a suit directing to the security teams if you knew how to look. He'd see you from all those cameras they operate to watch absolutely everyone.
Did you know the Orange Guy was denied a gaming license in Nevada?
Can you guess why?
My brother told me the story. I laughed my ass off and figured the orange dude wasn't going anywhere. Boy was I wrong about that part, but the gaming commission knew damn well what was going on in Atlantic City and wouldn't tolerate it in Nevada. So… Trump Tower in Vegas is one of the few big buildings with NO gambling allowed. They knew he wouldn't keep his nose clean.
———
The casino mafiosi are the ones who are SO big they can still get away with dirty noses. Too much of their operations are legit to smack them down for now, but that used to be how things worked when the earlier Mafia was running things. Only the egregious violators got smacked.
John Viril,
In law, you often see gross applications of successful small scale rules after they get widespread adoption.
You argue that well and I'm inclined to agree, but I'm likely to take it in a direction you might not like. You just tempt me to argue there should be no rule at all.
———
Unintended Consequences is what this boils down to in the end. I'm sure mail ballots CAN be abused, but I know of too many abuses related to in-person voting (which I love to do) that are already treated as if they are what should be.
Consider the situation the last time North Dakota had a Democrat for a senator. That happened because of an unusual shift one year that allowed the tribal votes to add up enough to tip the scale. Next time, the State took measures to alter how a person identified themselves (there is no voter registration in ND and for good reason) that biased against the local tribes. Ta Da! The GOP won that time.
Unintended Consequences that we identify (later!) as cheating should obviously be prevented by extending and revising the rules. Vote cheating is a cancer capable of great harm to our republic. Don't put too much faith in ex ante efforts to stop it, though. None of us are imaginative enough to see them. A better question to be addressed is whether a proposed change can discourage an old cheat. We will all worry about a newer, bigger one… but we can discuss it and then choose.
For example, I think mail ballots should be delivered to everyone with a physical address who wants to vote that way. Voting is a Right and no one gets to tell The People what they want. Having said that, I think the ballots should be numbered with a unique identifier (long hash-like UUID) that gets ditched by vote counting devices AFTER ballot legitimacy is determined. In a digital world, we can do this AND still set up in-person voting stations for people who still want that.
As for ballot collection, I'd support registration of ballot collectors with the State. There are rules that apply to in-person voting volunteers that would apply equally to them. However, if a State is inclined to toy with registration rules to cause a bias, I'd be vehemently opposed no matter which party ran the state government at the time. Voting is a Right afterall.
———
"No knock" and "Sneak and Peek" are abominations. Period.
“You can make @#$@LOADS of money and stay entirely legit. “
if you call it ‘legit’ to ban players who happen to be good at a game. Or to fund “addiction research’ with the aim of better INDUCING addictive behavior.
…or to collaborate with blackmail rings enticing visitors into honey pot kompromat.
Of course loss of the Havana casinos was the last straw getting the old mob to recruit Oswald… leading to their shock and emergency measures when he actually did the deed.
You might like the casino scenes in my short story THE TELL.
Not at all. The bit about the mistresses demonstrates that they don't really think the life of the innocent fetus is more important than the worldly concerns of the adults whose choices created that life..
Larry,
This is still not logically sound argument. Basically, what you have done is say, see this how they REALLY behave. Then you use their behavior with mistresses to induce their REAL argument.
When you do that, you are effectively fabricating their position, which means you have basically have stacked a strawman argument.on top of an ad hominem (see, they put abortifacients in their mistresses drink!)
What you do not do here is address the abortion argument, instead you have attacked the person making it. Adding a strawman to knock down doesn't nullify this reasoning error, instead it creates further error.
John Viril:
This is still not logically sound argument. Basically, what you have done is say, see this how they REALLY behave. Then you use their behavior with mistresses to induce their REAL argument.
I sense we are having two different conversations. It might help if you would elucidate the particular argument that the pro-life side is making. Because I don't think they're putting forth a logically sound argument in the first place. I think they're tugging at heartstrings over the fate of babies by implicitly (maybe explicitly) making a value judgement that the zygote/embryo/fetus's plight supersedes that of the pregnant woman.
If the argument is about whose concerns are valued above others--and especially if the argument is about how it's not just each individual who makes that value judgement but that there is an objective scale by which everyone must accept whose concerns are valued above others--then it seems fair to me to point out that the messenger is demonstrating by their own choices that they don't subscribe to the value judgement they want to force others to accept.
Alfred Differ:
The region was clearing monthly revenues in the neighborhood of $1B
I heard that, before COVID struck, Vegas had special immediate-response procedures to handle emergencies like fire alarms because shutting down the casinos for even a minute would cost unbelievable amount of revenue.
The fact that the casinos shut down for weeks due to COVID is proof positive (to me, anyway) that the pandemic was no hoax. There's no way that those casinos gave up that much money just to maintain a false narrative just to make Trump look bad.
The author argues there are usually many possible plausible endings, but ya gotta pick one of them and not some other forced peice of junk. 8)
A good ending is not obvious ahead of time, but makes enough sense in hindsight not to feel like a cheat. My favorites are neither the tacked-on happy ending that the reader is hoping for nor the gratuitous tragic ending that is the opposite of what the reader is hoping for.
I also repeat that part of my satisfaction with an ending is really satisfaction with how well the author got himself through the narrative.
I think this is a big part of what bugs me about "Forgiveness" in the sense of a last minute conversion, a few seconds of repenting, and accepting "Our Lord" into one's heart. If that's what it takes (well meant of course) to avoid eternal torment, then it strikes me as an implausible request of faith.
My problem with the Christian take on forgiveness is that it depends not on faith in God, but on faith in faith. You literally are required to believe what you're told instead of your lying eyes. The reason I can't be a Christian is because I cannot accept the proposition that: "I have to believe that I have to believe in Jesus in order to get to heaven in order to get to heaven."
And no, that's not a typo.
@Alfred,
A response to you disappeared again. I suspect it will show up at some point about here in the thread.
Larry....I don't feel hated. This is the limitations of internet communications or perhaps the degree of hyperpolarization in our current world.
David, it is your porch. Yell away. You've ignored my comments on Wagers a half dozen times over our twenty years of interaction.
Alfred, I've seen Casino. Insightful movie. Thanks for the background on Vegas. If there was a specific intent to spotlight Macau casinos then my migratory presence here may have missed it.
I was hoping for a broader discussion of the nature of money and what used to be called "sins". Is there something in our nature that makes gambling, alcohol, various other things legal in Vegas, marijuana legalization etc innate? Is there a moral difference between individuals supplying these goods and services vis a vis governments?
I really do come here looking for insights, not incites.
Tacitus
All true... and yet ignores the biggest fact. TRILLIONS$$$ in Supply Side grifts for aristocracy were not invested in productive 'supply' as promised.
I was talking about the proximate causes of our current malaise, I view massive inequality as more of a root cause. Though, the more extreme inequality becomes, the more it becomes the headline reason (see, the French Revolution).
And yet, I do question supply side policies since Reagan as the only significant cause of inequality. I'm not willing to bet on it bc I don't even know how to model all the various social forces, much less recognize the data signals that show which one is the predominant cause.
Most LW pundits and many Keynesian economists with Dem political views (see: Krugman, Paul) do cite supply side policies as the biggest cause.
However, they seem to ignore the massive expansion in labor available to first world capital since the 80s. Seems to me that when you introduce an absolute glut of labor to the system, the early outcome will be a massive gain in profits for the people at the top of the food chain.
Along with this labor glut, the headline tech innovations came in the field of information technology, which yielded both huge productivity gains AND increased ability to exploit the comparative advantages between national economies within the umbrella of a single firm that exists across multiple national borders.
I don't pretend to come anywhere close to the ability to contest this with Dr. Krugman, whose Nobel Prize came from his expertise in comparative advantage. However, I don't see this point addressed when evaluating inequality (perhaps I'm not sufficiently well-read in the field). I do recall that when I made this structural argument soon after appearing on CB, u understandably identified me as an oligarch-apologist (not realizing that I see the huge inequality as a destabilizing force that needs to be curbed).
Another issue in evaluating the rise in inequality since Reagan is to determine how much wealth oligarchs were hiding to avoid taxation during FDR to Reagan tax rules.
I have no knowledge about how the tax avoidance game was played back then. However, given the massive headline income tax rates after FDR, my "legal intuition" screams that oligarchs had pushed massive amounts of wealth into the shadows to frustrate that tax regime.
Thus, when Reagan changed the rules, I suspect that a good chunk of the increase in inequality was simply oligarchs shifting wealth from the shadows to the light. Off the top of my head, I suspect a hella lot of stuff that companies "held for the production of income" actually was stuff that internal company rules reserved as a playground for oligarchs to use and enjoy without "owning" them.
Again, I don't have a clue how to evaluate how much wealth was hidden during the post depression recovery era. I suspect one would need to study tax avoidance treatises, estates and trusts materials, and corporate law treatises to reconstruct how that game was played before you could begin to guess how much effective wealth oligarchs controlled as opposed to what they legally owned.
Common sense says this occurred, I just don't know the extent. Conceptually, it's analogous to how markets react to price controls, which is to add all kinds of economic costs (see rent controlled apts in NYC).
There also could be inputs I don't see that affect the "inequality model."
Ultimately, it breaks down to vulgarized Darwinism. Asked a Christian about Christians who have mistresses; he replied “their seed is good.”
Another one said that if the unborn weren’t being killed, “it would be the Jews being killed instead.”
These sentiments are rather common.
Tacitus (I still want to write Tacitus2) :
I was hoping for a broader discussion of the nature of money and what used to be called "sins". Is there something in our nature that makes gambling, alcohol, various other things legal in Vegas, marijuana legalization etc innate?
I think the question is whether everything that "used to be called sins" really are sins. The reason I used to consider myself libertarian (before that term was co-opted) is because I don't think it is civil government's place to punish people for religious sins. Either God will do that, or He won't, and if the latter, then what business is it of anyone else's?
A part of the evolution of liberty--what some might call libertinism--is the acknowledgement over time that some forbidden forms of pleasure really aren't anyone's business to criminalize. Some see that as a breakdown in morality. I see it as an acceptance that the past was too strict.
Is there a moral difference between individuals supplying these goods and services vis a vis governments?
Now here is something that has always bothered me, since at least the time that states began running lotteries. I'm against criminalizing victimless pleasures, but if the state is going to do so, the rationale is that those things are harmful and that citizens should not be partaking. There's something sleazy about government using its power to forbid those things unless the government itself is the supplier.
Alan Brooks:
Another one said that if the unborn weren’t being killed, “it would be the Jews being killed instead.”
So what's the complaint? That abortion is diverting resources that could be better put to use on a new holocaust?
Alan Brooks:
Asked a Christian about Christians who have mistresses; he replied “their seed is good.”
That's an excuse for fornication, not for abortion. What would he say about Christians who have mistresses and insist they terminate an inconvenient pregnancy?
They say it is between the Christian and his Maker. But if abortion is outlawed, then it would be between the Christian and the Law, plus his Maker.
In some cases, yes. Sacrifice is important to them: if not self-sacrifice, certainly sacrificing others.
One ‘Christian’ darwinist said that if Jews and Roma Sinti hadn’t been exterminated, they would’ve had children—the corollary being “Europe would’ve become too crowded.”
I sense we are having two different conversations. It might help if you would elucidate the particular argument that the pro-life side is making.
Larry, I suspect u are right. I'm not making any substantive arguments about abortion at all (in these posts). I'm simply evaluating the logical structure on which your refutation rests.
The underlying presumption is that an unsound reasoning process yields consistently flawed results. Even if u can have some broken clock situations in which unsound analysis can give you a correct answer, I think cleaning up the process is necessary to achieve workable social rules.
I certainly agree that criminalizing birth control and restricting abortion of dead fetuses are absurd positions, but those positions in no way speaks to the abortion argument.
As for oligarchs using abortifacient roofies on their mistresses, well that just means they are criminals (at the very least, guilty of aggravated sexual battery. If held to their professed standards about abortion, they are murderers of some stripe).
However, correctly identifying their criminal conduct is pretty irrelevant to the abortion question. It's sort of like saying the we need to rethink Euclidian geometry because Jeffrey Epstein wrote A2 + B2 = C2 on his cell wall.
Tacitus,
Long time, no type!
"I was hoping for a broader discussion of the nature of money and what used to be called "sins". Is there something in our nature that makes gambling, alcohol, various other things legal in Vegas, marijuana legalization etc innate? Is there a moral difference between individuals supplying these goods and services vis a vis governments?"
When you ask questions about 'our nature' you can expect me to chime in, if I happen to be on the blog at the time (my autistic son has been becoming increasingly demanding of my time). For many of the things that have been called sins, there is most certainly something in our nature that makes these things issues. Most of them relate to addiction, which is now pretty well understood on a biological level.
Greed - When people get money or display their wealth, they get dopamine hits
Lust - ditto sexual gratification
Gluttony - same dopamine squirts, though not as much as you get from sex, and people don't usually get a thrill out of displaying gluttony these days, though there have been many cultures that practiced competitive feasting, as well as today's hot dog eating contests. That shows how cultural values mold the things we get thrills from
Pride (or Vainglory) - The dopamine addiction to praise is no less powerful than any other. This is how you get narcissism
I'm less sure about Wrath and Envy. I can see a direct connection between Wrath and Pride, though. Any threat to your reputation is denying you dopamine. I suspect that envy is very similar, though it likely has more to do with oxytocin than dopamine. One way the paradigm in neuroscience is beginning to shift is that people are discovering more and more that the workings of our minds often involve the coordination of multiple chemicals in multiple brain regions.
And probably the most important thing to keep in mind is that every individual has their own individual balance of neurotransmitters, hormones, receptors, and cultural and personal histories that influence how these interactions are expressed and experienced. This is why some people become alcoholics very easily while others can drink a bucket of scotch one day and quit cold-turkey the next. And this is why I am a radical anti-ismist. There are very few true human universals, and everyone reacts even to those differently. Trying to force everyone into the same mold is not only futile, it's barbaric and likely responsible for more suffering, misery, and death than anything else I can think of.
As two the second question, for one, morality is a very relative concept, even within cultures. It sounds like you are asking about whether people who charge for goods and services are morally different from government officials and/or employees who provide goods and services. The only reasonable answer to that question is that it depends on the people. There are business people who most would agree are morally upright, and there are government people who also fall into that category. And, of course, there are rapacious people in both contexts. Both business and government are arenas of power, and like all such arenas, they have their rules, traditions, and cultures.
Paul SB
John Viril:
I'm not making any substantive arguments about abortion at all (in these posts). I'm simply evaluating the logical structure on which your refutation rests.
Well, since you are not putting forth any particular argument for me (or anyone) to refute, I'm not clear on what basis you critique my refutation. As far as I can tell, what I am refuting is the notion that a blastocyst's interests outweigh those of a pregnant woman's. I am not aware of logical arguments in favor of that position, only of emotional appeals that society's duty to the voiceless fetus trumps the right of adults to their own bodies.
If the argument amounts to, "I know in my heart that protecting the innocent embryo is paramount, no matter the cost or embarrassment to adults," then that argument's persuasive power is lessened when the messenger obviously does not believe it in his heart.
If there is a logical argument that is independent of the messenger's character which I am failing to address, please educate me on what that argument looks like.
As for oligarchs using abortifacient roofies on their mistresses, well that just means they are criminals (at the very least, guilty of aggravated sexual battery. If held to their professed standards about abortion, they are murderers of some stripe).
I wasn't accusing them of date rape. I used "roofie" metaphorically to describe an actual case where a Republican politician gave his mistress an abortofacient without her knowledge so as to eliminate the embarrassing result of their affair. The woman didn't want an abortion, but the Republican made sure it happened. When that is the messenger, the message that abortion is not an option is diminished.
It's sort of like saying the we need to rethink Euclidian geometry because Jeffrey Epstein wrote A2 + B2 = C2 on his cell wall.
Only if Epstein was the only source of that equation--that it couldn't be proven but he insists that we trust him on it. And that, coincidentally, getting us to believe it somehow benefited him personally.
Alan Brooks:
One ‘Christian’ darwinist said that if Jews and Roma Sinti hadn’t been exterminated, they would’ve had children—the corollary being “Europe would’ve become too crowded.”
Words fail me.
I'm sorry I don't believe in Heaven and Hell, because I would love to see that guy get the surprise of his...well, not "life" exactly, but you know.
Well, since you are not putting forth any particular argument for me (or anyone) to refute, I'm not clear on what basis you critique my refutation.
Larry,
I'm using a field of study called "classical rhetoric," which is all about determining if an argument structure is based on sound logic or fallacious reasoning. It's where lists of "logical fallacies" come from.
Up till around 100 years ago, classical rhetoric was a required course to get a liberal arts degree. Somewhere along the line, rhetoric got removed from the curriculum. I THINK it had something to do with the idea that rhetoric wasn't necessary due to instruction in the scientific method, but I'm not sure.
You can still take courses in rhetoric, but they generally aren't required. Philosophy majors usually study it, and so do "classics" majors or ancient history majors. Hard to get a complete understanding of antiquity or medieval era scholars unless you grasp rhetoric, bc they were all versed in it.
Take, for example, a typical argument with that runs:
Given premises A and B, C occurs because Y.
It follows there are 4 points to attack this argument:
1. Premise A is incorrect
2. Premise B is incorrect
3. Result C doesn't actually happen in reality
4. The causative link between A & B which leads to C (Y) isn't sound
Rhetoric lists a whole host of ways in which people try to erroneously link their premises to reach a conclusion. These defective causation patterns are pretty much what the field means by "logical fallacy." Studying rhetoric helps you identify them and gives you an immediate basis to refute an argument.
Notice that none of this requires ME to make a substantive argument, while giving me the grounds to attack your position. In fact, that's a big part of the strategic appeal of going after someone's logic structure. This tactic puts you in an "all offense" position without giving your opponent anything to counter-attack.
You would think classical rhetoric is a required subject in law school. Not so. My law school didn't teach it, and I don't think most do. It's something I picked up on my own when I ran across oblique references to logical fallacies when reading legal cases.
JV
Inequality - the problem is that the BEST system that we have discovered so far the "Free Market" is inherently unstable
We engineers call it "Positive Feedback" - the richer that you are the easier it becomes to get even richer
If left to its own devices this will result in more and more wealth being concentrated in fewer and fewer hands - even if all of the players have equal skill
The game "Monopoly" shows this perfectly
When I read Capital in the 21st Century I was amazed to find that the RATE of return was still increasing with the sums invested even at the hundreds of millions of dollars level
Engineering hat on - Positive Feedback Systems NEED a control system
IMHO its the job of the Government to level the playing field
This can be done gently and continually by something like a wealth tax - or by means of Guillotines
Change of subject
Abortion
Premise A - the Fetus as a possible human has LESS rights than a human
Premise B - the Fetus as a possible human has The same rights as a human
Premise C - the Fetus as a possible human has MORE rights than a human
If Premise A is accepted then the Woman has the right to her own body and Abortion is 100% her decision
If Premise B is accepted then the Woman has the right to her own body and Abortion is 100% her decision - UNLESS we change the law so that somebody in danger of death becomes ENTITLED to use another persons organs - with the can of worms that would open!
Premise C - the Fetus as a possible human has MORE rights than a human - is the only one that would permit any person other than the woman to have any control of the decision to abort
John Viril:
Notice that none of this requires ME to make a substantive argument, while giving me the grounds to attack your position. In fact, that's a big part of the strategic appeal of going after someone's logic structure. This tactic puts you in an "all offense" position without giving your opponent anything to counter-attack.
Then why don't you diagram in "X implies Y" form what you think my argument is that you're refuting. Because I still don't think we're talking about the same thing. And I'm beginning to smell sealion.
You seem to be saying that the pro-life side has a good point, even if they themselves don't exemplify it. So far, I don't disagree with that in theory*. But I perceive their point to be that it is possible to live by their rules, which is not entirely a logical argument. It helps to have examples which demonstrate something like that, and it undermines those examples when they are lying about being able to live by their own stated values. If they can't, why should I be expected or held to that standard?
If you're saying that there's a valid logical point of theirs which doesn't depend on experimental demonstration, then I'm all ears to hear what that it. But if you're just gonna go with "I don't have to give an argument--I'm just showing how yours is wrong," then either show how mine is wrong (irrespective of the theoretical argument I'm refuting) or admit you're just playing parlor games and pretending you're the only one in the room who knows how logic works.
* My favorite quote attributed to Yogi Berra: "In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice, but in practice, there is."
Larry,
What John Viril is doing isn't sealion material. It's all about looking at the content of an argument critically.
I actually agree with him a bit when it comes to what you write about abortion. On other days (and years) we have actually argued the direct argument involving the ethics of abortion, but most of us here have been through it and don't talk about it anymore. John has not been through that process with us, so he picks up on your complaints about the hypocrisy of anti-abortion advocates only... which isn't really about abortion.
John,
We really HAVE been over the arguments for and against abortion here, but we tend to go a little easy on the topic lately because this all has a way of blowing up in David's face. Most of us land somewhere between the extreme of "let women do as they wish whenever they wish" and the center where we recognize some concerns and possible limits.
-----
Our recent attention on hypocrisy isn't really an attempt to deflect into ad hominem. It really IS an issue many of us have with some people involved. Hypocrisy is often viewed as a large enough character flaw that we reject what others might argue because of a profound lack of trust.
For example, I have issues listening to Catholic priests discussing how to care for troubled kids. It's not hard to guess why. It's not hard to see that my issue has nothing to do with whether a priest provides sound arguments. It IS possible for me to get past this, but I have to get to know the priest first and he's unlikely to appreciate my profound and unfounded suspicions of his character.
We're having to rescue a lot of comments from spam. Alas.
JV sorry. There is one and only one reason why the Right went nuts over abortion. The Jesus Effect. They know the bearded-beaded, sandal wearing socialist hippie would side with the woke left on any issue, especially favring oligarchs over the poor. They needed a flip-switch. An issue so blatant – if utterly subjective – that would FORCE Jesus to side with them (in other words offering high moral ground), despite favoring the libs in every other category. “Killing babies” fit the bill and they dived right in.
LH good point about the casinos and covid.
Tacitus: "You've ignored my comments on Wagers a half dozen times over our twenty years of interaction."
Utter bull. Utter bull. Utter bull. Utter bull. Utter bull. Utter bull. Utter bull. Utter bull. Utter bull. Utter bull. Utter bull.
...oh yes and Utter bull. But except for THAT, good point! (not)
Again, there should be some way for holding each other accountable for spreading utterly disprovable and disproved and desperately harmful lies. Consequences other than standing aside and shaking our heads as the Southeast United States drowns in floods and kudzu and mosquitoes and death and disease, flooding the rest of us with refugees who brought it on themselves.
All of your writhing and wriggling amounts to absolute refusal to even negotiate over parameters of such a court-of-facts. The $$$ aspect of wagering makes it clear to anyone... and terrifies you ostriches!
But it can be some other consequence system that forces you to admit that - for example - a mountain of facts shows that Climate Denialism is simply and purely a mix of insanity and distilled evil.
Tacitus,
Macau casinos
I picked up on that from earlier posts where he focused on certain people. Those people happened to be big moguls with a Macau presence where a VERY different legal regime applies. 8)
However, I'm pretty sure now that David and I have a few differences regarding what constitutes gambling (e.g. whether stock investing applies) and what to do about addiction enablers. On the ethical issues, we probably have a large overlapping agreement, but I generally don't put investments into the pot and I think he does. So… I should qualify my guesses at what he's thinking about regarding casino mafiosi.
———
I'm generally opposed to those who exploit the addictions of others, but I might not feel it is best to write laws making the exploitation criminal. I might not even support civil penalties depending on the nature of the act. I tend to favor reverse penalties that look at bit like this.
Imagine going to a small bar where the owner knows one of his regular customers is a real alcoholic. The owner chooses to serve him drinks one night and then when the alcoholic drives himself home he runs someone down and kills them. I'm VERY inclined to hold the bar owner culpable along with the alcoholic and if criminal penalties don't stick I'd be very tempted to ensure civil penalties did.
Now imagine the same bar and owner, but this time the alcoholic flies into a rage when he's cut off and tears up the place. Lots of property damage. I'd be VERY disinclined to hold the alcoholic culpable. The bar owner exploited his addiction and paid the price. End of story.
No matter what the written law actually says, that's the way I would be predisposed on the day I first sat on a jury. What the law actually says might adjust what I'd do from there.
———
Is there something in our nature that makes gambling, alcohol, various other things legal in Vegas, marijuana legalization etc innate?
Sure, but the reason they are at least somewhat legal in Vegas is because they've chosen not to make them illegal. Very libertarian. Their primary response when it comes to these things we otherwise use to judge a person's character is somewhere between "not my problem" and "not something I'm going to try to fix."
It's an oddity of the Mormons who first allowed it all in that they prefer to take care of these moral issues within their churches/temples. Not legislatures… at least in Nevada last century. The Nevada state legislature rarely ever met in session which makes a VERY loud statement if you think about it.
Alfred Differ:
I have issues listening to Catholic priests discussing how to care for troubled kids. It's not hard to guess why. It's not hard to see that my issue has nothing to do with whether a priest provides sound arguments.
Yes, and that's a similar illustration to what I've been saying about abortion.
John V makes it sound as if you are rejecting a truism like "A squared plus B squared equals C squared" because a bad person is the one who mouthed it. But "How to care for troubled kids," is not just an infallible logical argument. When someone gives you that sort of advice, they are relying on illustrative examples or personal experience to make their case. And if their personal experience belies the advice they are giving, you have good reason to doubt, or at least to seek further evidence before just taking the word of the one who can't live up to the ideal he's selling.
I'm thinking that pro-life arguments are more like that then they are about the statement of a mathematical or physics axiom. In that case, the messenger does matter because the messenger is using himself as evidence. "I am living proof," is in fact a premise within his argument, so falsifying that premise does change the outcome.
Dr Brin:
They needed a flip-switch. An issue so blatant – if utterly subjective – that would FORCE Jesus to side with them (in other words offering high moral ground), despite favoring the libs in every other category.
Except that, as comedian John Fuglsang loves to point out, Jesus never said anything (in the Bible) about abortion one way or another. And the book that the fundies all trot out to justify hating on gays--Leviticus--doesn't forbid abortion, but does give instructions on how to perform one on an unfaithful wife.
“Killing babies” fit the bill and they dived right in.
Well, dived in eventually, after segregation wasn't working as a wedge issue. The Moral Majority types were all about keeping black kids out of white schools in the 70s. Only when that wasn't working so well did they switch their main issue to abortion.
Alfred,
I got that abortion was a bit of a tired subject here, and thus thought I could "finesse" it by solely focusing on logic structure.
A vain hope. The underlying subject is so emotionally explosive it's hard to isolate any part of that debate into a logic silo.
Weirdly enough, I went to 12 years of Catholic school, which includes 4 in high school where i was taught "theology" by Jesuit priests with PhDs in the subject.
Thus, my grounding in Catholic theology is significantly more advanced than the average person in the pew. I can go through Catholic theology about abortion with precision (though the strict Catholic view isn't my view, I do know what it is and how to argue it).
Removing Rhetoric from the liberal arts curriculum is something of a hobby horse of mine. I think it was a bad idea. To me, I see entire fields in the humanities whose core assumptions seem built upon obvious logical fallacies. Sigh. I'm sure practicioners in those fields would say my criticism is based on hubris if I believe they're not aware of that issue.
Larry,
I don't profess to be some expert in rhetoric. I'm a guy who built a working knowledge of the subject bc I thought I had a practical use for it. I haven't attempted to teach what I learned to anyone, and probably wouldn't do it very well. If you truly are curious, I'm sure u could find a book on the subject which would teach it better than I could.
JV said:
Misogynistic "pro-life" (someone who was truly pro-life would care about kids after they were born)
This is a logically flawed argument. Basically, hurling the misogynist "they hate children bc they don't agree with our social policy" argument breaks down to a dressed up ad hominem.
DP said:
Misogynistic "pro-life" (someone who was truly pro-life would care about kids after they were born) attitudes towards women are also driven by a fall in white birth rates and Tucker Carlson's racist "Great Replacement Theory"
removing the parenthetical subordinate clause
Misogynistic “pro-life” attitudes towards women are also driven by a fall in white birth rates and Tucker Carlsons racist “Great Replacement Theory.”
Moving on to grammar.
DP's statement:
Subject: Attitudes. Verb: Driven.
Attitudes are driven by a fall in birth rates and a theory.
While blowing the whistle on DP’s logically flawed argument, JV misparaphrases DP, implying that misogynist means hatred of children rather than hatred of women?
Moreover an ad hominem is directed against a person rather than a position. But the subject of the statement that JV calls out in DP’s argument is (checks notes) an Attitude.
DP’s statement does not say pro-life attitudes towards women are Misogynistic.
DP’s did not say “they hate children bc they don’t agree with our social policy.”
DP’s statement implies that (true) pro-life views would “care about kids after they were born.”
DP’s statement implies that some “pro-life” attitudes towards women are misogynistic and are driven by (A) something DP doesn’t say + (B and C) a fall in white birth rates and Tucker Carlson's racist "Great Replacement Theory.
(It’s leg day and I’m procrastinating.)
Re: Logic
There's story about a rabbi. (There often is.) A young Talmudic student came up to the Rabbi and said, "Rabbi, I've just proved my nose does not exist!"
The Rabbi punched the student in the nose, and when the student grabbed his nose in pain, asked solicitously, "What hurts?"
I don't really care about the logic of abortion. Women are getting hurt because other people (mostly but not exclusively men) are sticking their noses into private and painful situations. We may need more nose-punching rabbis.
Pappenheimer
Dr Brin,
It's a testament to the power of the Powers That Be that climate denialism has grown, not diminished, over the last few decades. Unfortunately your wager tactic falls flat in front of a complete disinterest in what the facts of the matter are.
Even more unfortunately, I don't know of any tactic that will do much more good. It reminds me of the happy, not very musical islanders in Eric the Viking (recommend the movie) who live on a blessed island* that will sink if blood is shed on it, and because nobody would ever be so stupid as to use violence there, they blithely disappear into the rising sea when a bunch of Vikings show up and behave like Vikings.
Pappenheimer
*There used to be a lot of those fanciful islands dotting medieval maps. Brazil was named after one of them, IIRC.
He was a cranky old chain-smoker, who wasn’t taken too seriously. The lower the education-level is, the more unfiltered the opinions are.
John Viril,
Removing Rhetoric from the liberal arts curriculum is something of a hobby horse of mine. I think it was a bad idea.
I agree. 100%. We don't teach it outside a narrow domain and wind up with the equivalence of illiteracy in the general population. Very few can parse an argument at all. It's all about the feels.
…my grounding in Catholic theology…
Some of us would argue with you in a respectable fashion, but I want to watch out for content that will draw attention from angry fangs of sanctimony out there. WE might be well-behaved, but everything we write here has the potential to cause our host a TON of grief.
———
… If you truly are curious…
I'm self-taught with all the usual expectations of gaps in my knowledge. I know what the logical fallacies are and have some experience with the philosophy of language. Formal systems and their structures are second nature to me, but there ARE gaps. Especially terminology.
Some of us here are much better trained, though. You'll run into them if they choose to self-identify. What I'm saying is don't make too many assumptions about everyone here. In a collective sense, there is a LOT of skill here.
Pappenheimer:
The Rabbi punched the student in the nose, and when the student grabbed his nose in pain, asked solicitously, "What hurts?"
That's similar to the guy who was here a while back insisting that I was an idiot for believing that I exist when he had demonstrated conclusively that I am only an illusion. When I asked who exactly it was that perceived that illusion, his explanation was that the illusion perceives itself!
What can you do with someone like that other than punch him in the nose?
* * *
John Viril:
I haven't attempted to teach what I learned to anyone, and probably wouldn't do it very well.
I'd be content if you would tell me where my refutation of an argument is wrong instead of simply asserting that it doesn't matter what the argument is. To me, an argument of the type, "My values are objective and universal, so all must abide by them," is indeed unconvincing when the messenger can't even do so himself. There's no logical truism there--only an assertion that one must take on a certain amount of faith.
Rush Limbaugh may have been morally correct to condemn people with drug problems, even though he had such a problem himself. He cannot have been morally correct to condemn everybody else for having a drug problem while excusing his own as a special case. That is where pro-life arguments by those who get abortions fall apart. If their pro-choice position is correct, then their "pro-life for everybody but themselves" position is not.
If you could point to the logical truism inherent in a pro-life argument that doesn't depend at all on the character of the person saying it, then you might convince me, but "I don't have to specify anything," isn't going to cut it. Quoting Leo McGarry in West Wing, "I'm not convinced because you haven't convinced me."
Basically, hurling the misogynist "they hate children bc they don't agree with our social policy" argument breaks down to a dressed up ad hominem.
Slim moldie, I plead an inartful attempt to shorthand what I meant.
Basically, I saw the "if they actually cared about children they would agree with our social policy" as an assertion that the right really hates children thus they can't be pro life. Hence, their abortion position isn't about saving children, instead it must be about punishing women (misogyny).
This assertion could be lifted directly from Salon pundit Amanda Marcotte.
That "not really pro life/misogyny" connection about pro-lifers is a common lw trope I consider invoked by denying their sincerity due to social policy disputes.
If the subject is solely "misogynistic attitudes" whose source is: 1) fall in birth rates from white women, and 2) Carlson's racist Great Replacement Theory---then why is pro-llfe also a modifier for their attitudes? Seems to be a clear inference that rw abortion position is tied up with racism and misogyny.
Are you really going to go to diagraming sentences to claim there's no body to attack? Let's see, pro-llfers have "misogynistic attitudes" because white women aren't having enough children and they buy into a racist rw theory.
Yep, no ad hominems here. The sky is also green.
I agree that "Pro-life" and "Pro-choice" are the terms used by the factions involved about themselves, but that does not make those terms any less deceptive and self-deceptive.
Many so-called pro-lifers favor war, the death penalty, police violence, and gun violence. They are only pro some life, at some times. The term 'pro-life' is inaccurate; thus I prefer 'anti-abortion'.
Likewise, pro-choicers are not for choice in all things. For instance, many pro-choicers are anti-gun, and surely the use of a gun is a matter of choice. The term 'pro-choice' is inaccurate; thus I prefer 'pro-abortion'.
This puts me, in this case, on the prescriptivist side of the prescriptivist/descriptivist argument in linguistics. I feel the same way about other misnamed factions in politics. "Conservatives" do not conserve, "liberals" do not liberate, nor do "libertarians", "progressives" make no progress, and "evangelists" are bad news. Instead I prefer to call them, respectively, reactionaries, conformists, propertarians, regressives, and theocrats.
Really all that the pro-abortion-anti-gun and anti-abortion-pro-gun factions disagree about is a matter of timing. Both agree that some human lives are disposable; they differ as to when to dispose of those lives; pre- or post-natally.
My own culture-war position is MYOB: Mind Your Own Business. I propose this MYOB Amendment:
Congress shall make no law restricting the right of consenting adults in private to love as they will, if it harms none.
JV sorry. There is one and only one reason why the Right went nuts over abortion. The Jesus Effect.
Dr. Brin,
I must confess a sort of wry bemusement at myself after I read this point.
I was taught the Catholic position about abortion WAY before Catholics started to line up with the religious right. In the early days, the religious right/repub coalition was an evangelical christian thing that sort of didn't include Catholics.
Later, I went to law school and argued abortion as a constitutional rights issue. Silly me never much thought about it much as political wedge issue designed to build a coalition.
However, your assertion does make sense. As I recall, Protestants tended to be pretty meh about abortion. It was always a catholic thing., which came from Catholic doctrine rather than Biblical authority.
Then, in the late 80s, early 90s, a bunch of Protestants start screaming about it. So, your assertion perfectly fits the facts on the ground. I have heard some vague contentions about this theory, but didnt think about them much. I'm not a big partisan loyalist.
When I argue abortion, I'm coming from a constitutional rights/ethical framework (usually try to use secular humanist concepts as a matter of policy).
Paradoctor
Pro-Choice is not Pro-Abortion
Its more Pro- any medical procedure that the person who owns the body wants
Abortion is just one of them - in some ways its like having a cancer cut out
The cancer wants to live - and its genetically human -
but everything we write here has the potential to cause our host a TON of grief.
Alfred, probably better not to go there. plus, I have no emotional need to defend Catholic theology.
When I read Capital in the 21st Century I was amazed to find that the RATE of return was still increasing with the sums invested even at the hundreds of millions of dollars level
Duncan,
Like a whole lot of other people, I too read that book with great interest. Not being an economic historian, I could in no way question how he developed his data from indirect historical records.
Instead, focused on the latter part of the book where he discussed his conclusions and their implications for today.
Sorta interesting that he sees monopoly as the natural outcome of capitalism, and that the great depression, FDR's tax regime, WW2, and post-war recovery, sort of interrupted that progression. However, now we are back on a track toward oligarchy and mass monopolies.
Seems to me, he's validating Marx, and his book bears some resemblance to Critical Theory work.
JV
Yep I concluded the same
BUT its not all lost! - we use systems with positive feedback all the time - they just need to be controlled
If you just switch one on and ignore it you are in the crap
But if you control it you can get the benefit
Remembering with these situations you have people actively working to find and exploit loopholes so you need an active control
OGH Dr Brin has some very good ideas on that subject - starting with simply IDENTIFYING all the wealth
We know roughly how much wealth Bill Gates and Elon Musk have - but we have no idea how much wealth Putin has - or 10,000 other dubious individuals
OGH believes that a huge amount of wealth will never be connected to actual people as they would then have to explain how they got it - so as "unclaimed wealth" it should belong to society as a whole
Duncan and John,
For the front half of Piketty's book to work, he has to leave out such a huge bloc of wealth that I think it undermines his entire effort. He shouldn't have left it out.
What? Human capital. That thing we create when we invest in our educations, train on the job, improve as we become fluent, and a zillion other ways. He left it out because he argued it can't be sold, thus can't be priced. YET… it is the primary thing mothers create as they raise children. It is THE primary source of wealth that makes our civilization purr… and spit occasionally.
I think if we counted it, we'd find the poor aren't so poor and the rich are doing quite a bit more than they realize to make the poor richer. Unintended Consequences!
But… it can't be sold? Pfft. Horse shit. I use my accumulated 'human' capital at work daily. I use it when I'm investing. I'm trying my damnedest to create more in my son for the sake of his future income. It doesn't have to be sold for us to estimate its value indirectly in the other things we buy and sell.
What cancer does NOT want to live? Hmm?
Besides... aren't all our cancers genetically human?
I think I'm closest to being anti-anti-abortion. 8)
And no... I don't see a fetus as a cancer. Not even close. Could be a health hazard, though.
Alfred
I would argue that we USE our "human capital" to PRODUCE the wealth - before that its merely potential
AND the wealth that we produce using our skills is then diverted into the pockets of the very rich
Most of whom do not actually produce any wealth at all
Duncan,
We use capital to generate more capital.
Stores of capital tend to be called wealth.
In other words, I think Piketty's result comes from a flawed choice where he sets aside a capital accumulation that goes to the very heart of this civilization.
We've amassed a VAST sum of human capital that is growing at an astonishing speed now. Ponder what the internet means to its growth rate. Kaboom!
John Viril said...
Notice that none of this requires ME to make a substantive argument, while giving me the grounds to attack your position. In fact, that's a big part of the strategic appeal of going after someone's logic structure. This tactic puts you in an "all offense" position without giving your opponent anything to counter-attack.
I think that there is a reason this falls under 'rhetoric' while pretending to be 'logic'.
Yes, logical forms of argument are useful, as is an understanding of fallacies and logical flaws. But one must actually connect to some specific argument in order to challenge it, or to challenge its refutation.
No, you don't need to "make a substantive argument" to challenge someone else, but there must be some "substantive argument" in play in order for your attack to have any substance. You cannot meaningfully claim that someone is not addressing "the argument" without actually pointing to 'the argument' in question. Otherwise you are just hand-waving or playing rhetorical games.
As Duncan points out, if the beliefs of the person making the claim are part of the argument, then addressing those beliefs is addressing the argument. If you think that such is not part of 'the argument', then you need to point out what is 'the argument' you are referencing.
Alfred
The human capital on its own does nothing - its like fuel without an engine or an engine without fuel
When the "human capital" is added to traditional capital THEN we get more capital - more wealth
Today the "owners" of the traditional capital are in charge of that process and pocket the profits - YES there is a huge amount of "human capital" out there - but its NOT the limiting/controlling factor - because there is so much of it!
The control of the "traditional capital" is key
We can see this with your experience in rocketry - compared to Musk's - he brought $100 million to the picnic
If we can increase the "traditional capital" enough THEN we can use the "Human Capital" to move into a post scarcity economy
One additional thought
How does somebody become a CEO of a huge company??
The traditional routes are
Inherit vast wealth
Get promoted into that position by winning the game of Office Backstabbing
And in a tiny minority of cases by developing your own company
When I think of it like that I am no longer as surprised by just how massively well Musk has done
Paradoctor said...
I agree that "Pro-life" and "Pro-choice" are the terms used by the factions involved about themselves, but that does not make those terms any less deceptive and self-deceptive.
Many so-called pro-lifers favor war, the death penalty, police violence, and gun violence. They are only pro some life, at some times. The term 'pro-life' is inaccurate; thus I prefer 'anti-abortion'.
Likewise, pro-choicers are not for choice in all things. For instance, many pro-choicers are anti-gun, and surely the use of a gun is a matter of choice. The term 'pro-choice' is inaccurate; thus I prefer 'pro-abortion'
But this isn't quite right either, even if you consider yourself prescriptivist.
Most (the vast majority, I think) of 'pro choice' people are not in fact pro-abortion, but pro-abortion-rights, which is not the same thing. Many, if not most, consider abortion a "necessary evil", and prefer something like the "safe, legal, and rare" formulation. That is, abortion is a health care decision that, when necessary, should be make by the doctor and patient, not the state.
Just like there are people who "anti-gun" - in the sense that they want nothing to do with firearms - but nonetheless "pro-gun-rights", because they think that the state should not prevent someone from owning a firearm.
Paradoctor:
"Conservatives" do not conserve, "liberals" do not liberate, nor do "libertarians", "progressives" make no progress, and "evangelists" are bad news. Instead I prefer to call them, respectively, reactionaries, conformists, propertarians, regressives, and theocrats.
I think you are engaging in a lot of handwaving in the service of bothsiderism. How you get "conformists" for liberals is beyond me. I grew up in the 60s, when conservatives were all about conformity and the whole point of liberalism was to liberate everyone from that requirement. If your point is that liberals have become doctrinaire in themselves, there is some truth to that, but "conformity" is hardly the essence of liberalism. And many liberals like myself feel that leftists who do enforce a rigid conformity have lost sight of their liberalism.
I also think that "progressives make no progress" because they are thwarted at almost every turn. You might as well say that Hitler was not a conqueror because he lost. And even if you don't accept that, how exactly do you feel progressives are "regressive"? Again, isn't that what today's conservatives are?
@John Viril,
Seems the conversation has mostly moved on, which is just as well. I'll make this my final word on the subject of argument unless you wish to continue.
A stopped clock may well be right at the moment, but one doesn't argue that the time is 7:20 by pointing at the stopped clock and going, "See?" And if one refutes the argument by saying, "That clock isn't even working," that is not an ad-hominem. If the time is indeed 7:20, other evidence than the stopped clock is required to prove it.
Likewise, Catholic doctrine may be correct about abortion and wrong about the death penalty or divorce. But if one's argument against abortion is that it is forbidden by Catholic doctrine, then pointing out that the person making that argument doesn't defer to Catholic doctrine on any other matter is relevant. He's treating Catholic doctrine as the stopped clock--right on just this one thing--and so other evidence is required to bolster the assertion that Catholic doctrine has this issue correct even if it is otherwise fallible.
Larry Hart said...
"Paradoctor (said):
""Conservatives" do not conserve, "liberals" do not liberate, nor do "libertarians", "progressives" make no progress, and "evangelists" are bad news. Instead I prefer to call them, respectively, reactionaries, conformists, propertarians, regressives, and theocrats."
I think you are engaging in a lot of handwaving in the service of bothsiderism. How you get "conformists" for liberals is beyond me. I grew up in the 60s, when conservatives were all about conformity and the whole point of liberalism was to liberate everyone from that requirement. If your point is that liberals have become doctrinaire in themselves, there is some truth to that, but "conformity" is hardly the essence of liberalism. And many liberals like myself feel that leftists who do enforce a rigid conformity have lost sight of their liberalism.
I also think that "progressives make no progress" because they are thwarted at almost every turn. You might as well say that Hitler was not a conqueror because he lost. And even if you don't accept that, how exactly do you feel progressives are "regressive"? Again, isn't that what today's conservatives are?"
I agree with just about everything you wrote here. Paradoctor appears to be focusing only on the worst that each group includes, the extremists. This seems to be either disingenuous or fatalist. It fails to take into account the very significant differences in the proportion of extremists in the different groups, among other things. Such things matter, a lot. Reality is messy that way.
But, there are indeed progressives that fairly fit the regressive descriptor. And I say that as someone who has been accused of being a progressive, even once on this site. Most notably the extremists among DEI proponents. What they preach is quite literally regressive, as in they would have us erase what progress has been made and go back to using "race" as a primary metric and go back to segregation based on "race."
But of course most progressives aren't that way and progressivism as a whole certainly is not. And then there's the problem of what anyone means by "progressive" at any given utterance. Is any time any progress has been made towards improving the lot of the average person in our society Progressive? By that metric Progressivism has been the driving force behind every single legislative change that helped transform the US into a relatively fair, free, diamond shaped society since FDR. While conservatism fought against nearly all of them.
Larry Hart:
It is easier to see the contradictions and hypocrisies of a faction not one's own, than to see the c&h of one's own faction. So what shall I call liberals, given that they do not liberate? Regulists? Statists? Corporatists? Or worst of all... _conservatives?_ For unlike the quote, conservatives, unquote, there do exist things that they wish to conserve. Rule of law, democracy, and the climate, for three.
I stand by the regressiveness of progressives. They've been thwarted at every turn in part because they choose only thwartable causes. My crackpot theory is that they do so because they are quietly funded by reactionaries to pursue futility. Also, some of the more quote, radical, unquote, of the quote, progressives, unquote, have progressed beyond the concept of progress. There's a horse-shoe unity of 'progressives' and 'conservatives'.
I suppose that we can call their horse-shoe unity point 'identitarian'. Note that the biggest, loudest, best-funded and best-armed identity-politics group is the white supremacists. The trouble with identity politics is that identity is mostly an imposed illusion. You don't send your identity card to the government; the government sends their identity card to you. Far more liberatory than identity politics is unity politics. El pueblo unido hamas sera vincido.
Darrell E:
But, there are indeed progressives that fairly fit the regressive descriptor. And I say that as someone who has been accused of being a progressive, even once on this site. Most notably the extremists among DEI proponents. What they preach is quite literally regressive, as in they would have us erase what progress has been made and go back to using "race" as a primary metric and go back to segregation based on "race."
Yes, BUT...
I see a difference between using race to keep one group elevated above others, and using race as a tool to try to make victimized groups more equal. The two may have "using race" in common, but what the pro-equality side is using race for is hardly "regressive". Locumranch argues that black people arguing for equal rights is the same thing as white nationalists arguing that their racial identity requires them having special privileges. They are not. They are opposite things.
My point isn't that race-based classification for good purposes is a good idea. Just that it is not the same thing (regressive-wise) as using race to designate one of them the master race.
It's true that the reversals I note here are concentrated at the top of their respective movements. The rank and file are sincere. But the top is who makes policy. Perhaps this is the Peter Principle at work, or the corruption of power.
Darrell E, preach it about the regressiveness of DEI. DEI is about how to be racist without being racist, sexist without being sexist, and bigoted without being bigoted. It doesn't mention classism because it is funded by the owning class. DEI rules in elite academia; down at my level, in the community colleges, the students have grittier things to worry about.
Paradoctor:
So what shall I call liberals, given that they do not liberate?
I don't accept your axiom that liberals don't liberate. Liberals are hard at work trying to liberate women from religious doctrine, and liberating everyone from rigid racially and sexually determined roles. Liberals made a lot of progress liberating non-traditionally sexual people in the past decade.
Regulists? Statists?
You're attacking a right-wing caricature of liberals. At worst, those are tools that liberals wish to use--possibly overzealously--to do good. They are not the essence of liberalism. To take one example, liberals want people to be able to trust that the food they buy in the marketplace isn't rancid or poisonous. To that end, we use government regulation as a means. But it's not the act of regulating itself that drives us. It's the safety aspect. Point being, a good liberal wakes up every day asking, "How can I make the world a better place?". He doesn't wake up going, "How can I regulate more? How can I increase the power of the state?"
Corporatists?
To the extent that liberals have become corporatist, they seem to have done so in the (maybe correct, maybe not) belief that that's the only game in town. Liberals are reluctant corporatists. Conservatives are the corporate cheerleaders.
Or worst of all... _conservatives?_ For unlike the quote, conservatives, unquote, there do exist things that they wish to conserve. Rule of law, democracy, and the climate, for three.
Well, they want to change things for the better in order to preserve those things. But even if the term is correct, we can't use "conservative" to mean liberal any more than we can use "religious liberty" to mean freedom for everyone to worship as they please. Certain terms have been too co-opted to mean specific things.
If you want a somewhat-pejorative descriptor for liberals, how about "idealists"? Or "Utopians"?
Reportedly, the Tsar
has around 50B.
Larry Hart said...
"Yes, BUT...
I see a difference between using race to keep one group elevated above others, and using race as a tool to try to make victimized groups more equal."
Of course. You see a difference in those two things because there is one. I see it too and anyone who doesn't is a moron or possibly a white supremacist of some sort.
BUT, that part I bolded? That is not an accurate description of what the extreme DEI proponents I'm talking about say, write or do. As happens with pretty much any kind of movement, the extremists have stepped (vaulted?) beyond the righteous goal you stated above.
I tend to feel that groups that have been mistreated are due a certain leeway in swinging the needle beyond what is strictly fair and just, within certain limits. Nevertheless DEI extremists' views are literally the opposite of progressive, and we are at a point where it needs to be pointed out. Don't misunderstand me, I don't think this problem is even remotely in the same ballpark as the problems we are facing from the RP and their supporters, apologists, etc. But I am capable of talking about many problems all at the same time.
I didn't bring this up as a both sides are bad sort of argument, (I despise bothsiderism) I brought it up because I want my side, and I absolutely consider you on my side, to not leave themselves vulnerable to both sides sorts of arguments. As always there's a little kernel of truth at the center of bothsiderism, which some people desperately cling to, but what makes it bullshit in reality is the differences in quantity and quality between the sides.
Locumranch argues that black people arguing for equal rights is the same thing as white nationalists arguing that their racial identity requires them having special privileges. They are not. They are opposite things.
Larry and Darrell,
This excerpt made me think that a lot problems come from classing people into a group then attributing the behavior of the whole to that individual.
Thus, creating a different standard for "blacks" to counteract generations of systemic oppression make sense if you look at demographic numbers about the average social outcomes for blacks in society.
However, that "different standard" becomes absurd if the guy trying to exercise it pulls out his ID, and his Illinois driver's license reads:
Mike Jordan Jr.
23 Lakeshore Drive.
Putting people into groups in order to make policy decisions can have tragic outcomes on the world stage. Consider that Gazans apparently killed 1,200 Israelis on Oct 7, and the Israelis have now killed more than 20k Gazans in response.
We can talk about issues like unprovoked attacks, disproportionate responses, deterrence, citizen safety, justice, and restitution. And those arguments can even make sense when you talk about Gazans and Israelis as singular entities.
However, they really break down when Ari, the IDF soldier, is ordered to clear the apartment building of Ali, a 25 yo Gazan man.
Ari spies a cell phone on the kitchen counter within easy reach of Ali, who has frozen with uncertainty instead of raising his hands, as Ari has ordered in heavily-accented Arabic.
Ari's standing orders are to shoot possible Hamas fighters with access to electronic devices which could be used to trigger an IED, that could demolish Ari's entire platoon.
Ari, however, sees groceries spread across the counter, hears Ali's two month old son crying in a crib, and notices the screen of the cell phone displays a recipe for lentil soup.
How much sense do Ari's standing orders make now?
Whenever you go from the granular to the group level, your analysis WILL inevitably create distortions, no matter how hard you try. And, yet, refraining from putting people into groups to make national policy is NOT a viable solution.
The problem is, no one has the bandwidth to process the 2 million individual situations in Gaza and project how those realities intersect with the 10 million individual situations in Israel. Try do do so, and Israel will be paralyzed, completely incapable of taking ANY action.
What's the answer?
I wish I was smart enough to devise a solution. But the problem is way beyond my pay grade.
Heh. Emphasis mine...
https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2024/Items/Jan10-5.html
The weather is already having an effect, as it is forcing candidates to change their schedules. For example, a snowstorm this week caused Haley to miss a planned event in Sioux City because she couldn't get there. Trump had to cancel an event in Ottumwa; undoubtedly the grandchildren of Radar O'Reilly were devastated. Roseanne Barr couldn't get to a Trump event in Boone. Vivek Ramaswamy skipped an event in Indianola because he couldn't make it. If extreme weather is enough to shut Ramaswamy up, maybe climate change isn't such a bad thing, after all.
All too true...
https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2024/Items/Jan10-9.html
...
Trump has been a great teacher. The Republican Party has learned a lot from him. The first lesson is that shattering rules and norms doesn't bring much of a penalty. The second is that while one scandal can be devastating, a hundred of them are just white noise. The third—and most important one—is that elections are not the end points about who achieves power. They are just way stations where the process changes to a different mode.
Republican leaders were shocked by what happened in 2020. They expected that when their candidate lost, he would just gracefully concede, like John McCain did in 2012 and Mitt Romney did in 2016. Now they realize that in 2024, they don't have to accept defeat. They can continue trying to acquire power by any means they can, legal or otherwise. If they are lucky, the Supreme Court might even back them up. And most important, there really isn't any downside to trying, so it is a no-brainer to try.
...
Biden Jr. thoroughly skuled the 'we hope to find evidence' committee, then gave MTG the Klingon back-turn treatment and left, just as she was about to start recording her grifting sound-bite.
Masterful.
LH:
The second-most pejorative label that I have for the D party is "centrist": for when mere anarchy is loosed upon the world, the center does not hold.
The most pejorative label is "utopian". That word is a betrayal of idealism, for it means both Eutopia, the Good Place, and Outopia, No Place. Sir Thomas More was deeply cynical when he invented that word. My friend Eric Bergerud proposed what I call Bergerud's Law:
Utopian politics always fail, always do damage, and are always incoherent.
As for why conservatives don't conserve and liberals don't liberate; I (dis)credit it to the Vested Interest Phenomenon, or V.I.P.:
Every social service organization has a vested interest in the continued existence of very evils that the organization is pledged to combat.
Thus conservatives have a vested interest in decay, and liberals have a vested interest in oppression. Complete success would be as disastrous as complete failure; therefore they tend to evolve modes of sustainable partial failure.
Paradoctor:
liberals have a vested interest in oppression. Complete success would be as disastrous as complete failure;
"Surely, you're not saying
We have the resources
To save the poor from their lot.
There will be poor always,
Pathetically struggling.
Look at the good things you've got."
Darrell E:
I brought it up because I want my side, and I absolutely consider you on my side, to not leave themselves vulnerable to both sides sorts of arguments.
...
...liberals have a vested interest in oppression.
Given your disdain for liberals, I'm genuinely curious in what sense you consider me to be on your side.
Larry, if you think I have disdain for liberals you are either confusing me with someone else or you aren't as bright as I thought you were.
@Darrell E,
Probably some from column A, some from column B. :)
LH:
To be fair to Darrell E, it was I, not he, who said that liberals have a vested interest in oppression. He said that DEI is regressive and racist, and I agree. I see DEI as a example of the Vested Interest Phenomenon. It is a general phenomenon, going beyond politics.
For example, I as a teacher have a vested interest in human ignorance. Fortunately for me, human ignorance is infinite. I do not need to corrupt my teaching to ensure a steady supply of students. Likewise my doctor brother has a vested interest in disease; but disease is self-renewing and built into the biosphere, so my brother can practice honestly and effectively without danger of working himself out of a job. Our gracious host is, among other things, an entertainer, and therefore has a vested interest in boredom; also fortunately infinite. Sanitation workers can do a great job, and still expect garbage cans on the street next week.
But DEI and quote conservatism unquote must manufacture their nemeses. Which they do.
I deduce that the Vested Interest Phenomenon has a curious corollary, "Sisyphean Integrity":
Endless labor can be honest.
Il faut imaginez Sisyphe honnete!
As for you and me and Darrell E putting up with each other somehow: liberalism is a big tent. It's cat-herding.
Paradoctor:
For example, I as a teacher have a vested interest in human ignorance. Fortunately for me, human ignorance is infinite. I do not need to corrupt my teaching to ensure a steady supply of students.
That's what I was alluding to by quoting Jesus Christ, Superstar. The poor will always be with us. The poor will always be with us. We don't have to undermine improvement in order to feel useful.
While I know what you're getting at, I'm not clear on how the right-wing has managed to stir up such hatred toward "DEI". Had we already achieved a color-blind society only to have progressives drag us back down? It reminds me of the negativity they have managed to engender toward "BLM" and "Antifa". Black Lives Matter was a literal call for recognition that black lives do (or should) in fact...matter. And since when is it wrong to be anti-fascist? Yet, both of those terms have become as toxic as al-Quaeda or ISIS. It seems to me that the same has happened to DEI.
Thus conservatives have a vested interest in decay, and liberals have a vested interest in oppression. Complete success would be as disastrous as complete failure;
While acknowledging the possible "Dennis Moore" affect, I wonder. Fascists have a vested interest in a scapegoatable enemy, but the Nazis wouldn't have made sure a steady supply of Jews survived had they been able to continue their program of extermination. What they would have done is move on to the next scapegoat. by the time only white, heterosexual Aryans had survived, they would have eventually had to purge left-handed people or short people or some other subset. Liberals have a similar vested interest in expanding the horizon of sympathy. Once blacks or women or immigrants are no longer oppressed, we tend to save the whales, or puppies, or baby seals. Eventually, I suppose even plants would be given the franchise. Point being, there's always someone on the outside who needs to be included. We don't have to intentionally keep people out for that to be true.
Paradoctor:
I deduce that the Vested Interest Phenomenon has a curious corollary, "Sisyphean Integrity":
Endless labor can be honest.
While I have no doubt that that's a real attitude, it is so contrary to my own way of thinking that I have a hard time imagining it. To me, endless labor in pursuit of an unreachable goal--as opposed to the "endless" task of eating every day or that sort--is pointless.
I've never subscribed to America's so-called Protestant work ethic which elevates work itself to a virtue and view leisure as "stealing from the company." I feel that puts me in the minority, although I suspect that I'm only in the minority because I freely admit this instead of parroting the party line.
I agree with LH
IF we were at the situation where having a dark skin was NOT a major impediment to having a good life THEN - DEI and BLM would be be counterproductive
But we are not at that point here in NZ - or in the UK
And in both NZ and the UK we are DECADES ahead of the USA in that journey
Limited time. But first:
Alfred I do not consider ALL investment to be gambling. In fact, the trading of stock equities that are no longer first-issues is not gambling in any strict sense. It is a competitive GAME where the players and outcomes have almost nothing at all to do with benefiting the original company. Except that in theory the stockholders can use their votes to choose better managers (which almost never happens.)
The stock market is not GAMBLING but it is GAMING and it is NOT ‘investment’ in any sense that Adam Smith would recognize. In any event, it does not merit vast tax subsidies. Except (again) for new issues.
JV you might enjoy my THEOLOGICAL PLAY which I touted here some time back after it was recorded at Caltech.
Unknown, just like Tacitus, you shrug off the wager method with a sentence that disproves or discredits the method not an iota. Did you read it before submitting it? The whole idea and effect is SHAME when the challenged MAGA weasels out of doing what his macho cult assumes a man would do.
It works. You don’t collect any money. But with any luck you can get the weasel publicly shamed as a coward weasel.
“Rush Limbaugh may have been morally correct to condemn people with drug problems, even though he had such a problem himself…”
Worst. Nancy Reagan. “*I* get my own sanctimony drug high! But YOU don’t get YOURS! Nyah!”
Duncan,
The human capital on its own does nothing…
Well… I think that is applicable to all capital. It's not that human capital added to other capital makes it valuable. I think ALL forms of capital coming together in the hands of humans provides the fuel for the engine. Capital + Wants. Just add humans. 8)
Today the "owners" of the traditional capital are in charge of that process…
Uhm… They tend to be in charge of writing the rules, but most human capital gets used without their getting a say in it.
We can see this with your experience in rocketry - compared to Musk's - he brought $100 million to the picnic.
He did, but I've seen people bring lots of money to an event and NOT have the human capital to make it work. Other multi-millionaires brought a LOT of money to play. Even other billionaires beside the two most people know. What Musk did is get that money into play WITH an equally valuable type of capital (e.g. engineers) AND with access to even more capital like NASA's tech data repositories once he had contracts with them.)
The engineers weren't really fuel. They were part of the necessary investment. You can see some of them in the early videos when they were trying to get the Falcon 1 in orbit.
When I think of it like that I am no longer as surprised by just how massively well Musk has done.
Heh. Yah. There is a lot of luck in it too. Not everything he touches turns to gold. 8)
Heh. Yah. There is a lot of luck in it too. Not everything he touches turns to gold. 8)
His "superpower" that other CEO's don't appear to have is the ability to say
"Fuck it - that didn't work - lets try this"
Uhm… They tend to be in charge of writing the rules, but most human capital gets used without their getting a say in it
The people who DO get a "say in it" are the CEO "clade" - all selected by their skills in the game of Office Backstabbing
David,
I admit I don't see much difference between GAMBLING and GAMING. Maybe I spent too long in Vegas. I DO see differences between types of games (slots are for suckers, poker is essentially renting the table from the casino, blackjack is… well… ). I'm not inviting you to go into a lot of detail on your distinctions, though. It's not that important.
——
I see the current stock market as an extension on something Adam Smith understood, though Smith might not like what we've done with it. There are obvious aristocratic elements in stock ownership (e.g. non-voting shares, stock options granted to insiders who can radically influence share prices, etc), but the sale of shares after first-issuance is a necessary exit ramp for original investors.
Selling shares to the public is fraught with dangers related to ignorance, but selling them to "qualified investors" risks turning it ALL into property owned by the golf buddy clade. Right now, a VAST number of shares are owned by pension and other retirement funds and I'm good with that.
The only reason I'm tempted to give some kind of tax relief to stock investors is I want the entrepreneurs to sell and move on to their next project. Selling to buy-out companies risks monopoly (Microsoft buying up competitors in the days of old), so selling to the public or their retirement fund proxies is one way out. I want this way because some people are really good at the entrepreneurial phase and we are better off if they do it again and again.
What I think Adam Smith would have learned to appreciate is that our stock market (even a flawed one like we have) enables a division of labor to be financed by a similar division. Some people are damn good entrepreneurs, but most of us suck at it. We aren't trained. Some people are damn good at taking entrepreneurial efforts up the growth S-curve where it is steepest. These people are NOT necessarily the early entrepreneurs. Most of us are untrained in this too. These people have valuable skills IF they can find teams in the right phase of growth.
Public stock markets (like ours) enable exits! Lots of people see the money making game, but I see the movement of people who sell their shares and move (possibly) to where their talents are better suited. Think of how many Microsoft millionaires turned their hands to other profitable projects later. Some just retired, but some did more. The same thing is happening now with some of the early SpaceX talent. They are out doing other, more entreprenurial things because they took an exit ramp. THAT'S worth something to us.
Duncan,
I think you are seeing only a small slice of where human capital gets used. I suspect a lot of people do, but I've run volunteer teams composed of a wide variety of talents (big and small) belonging to people of all stripes. I've seen some amazing things accomplished on shoestring budgets because the capital that actually mattered was what they had in their heads.
MOST human capital is out of reach of the CEO clade.
Most of it gets used in family settings making it fly under the radar of guys like Piketty.
Add it up. Small contributions from eight billion people who OBVIOUSLY invest in it. Watch mothers raise children and you'll see it happening. All of us with children have done this and most here have been heavy into it.
LH:
Endless labor can be honest. Ingest, excrete. I get up, I get down. Inhale, exhale.
In Shannon Wheeler's "Too Much Coffee Man" comics, the caffeinated one rants, "I wash the dishes. They get dirty. I wash them again and they get dirty again!!!"
This is all good. The Zen Buddhists say that Nirvana is in Samsara. (Respectively: the bliss of annihilating desire, and the daily round.)
On the other hand there are deliberately unreachable goals, and I agree, utopia stinks.
Alfred GAMING (not the lame relabeling done by Vegas casino guys) is about players bluffing each other of buying and selling prices. It has only minor luck levels and is more about guessing values in relation to future earnings.
GAMBLING has some overlaps but is essentially ABOUT luck. Overlaps yes. Poker is both.
The purpose of low cap gains taxes is to encourage purchase of the shares that help companies... first issues, primarily. I'd be willing to negotiateBut I see no justification when the stock is 'old'. The WallStreet justifiers claim another value in their parasitical 'market.' "Finding the correct price is worth them sucking juice, like lampreys from all the transactions.
Third: The fact that closed clubs of 'exchnange members' can trade for free, any number of times, into the trillions, is absolutely insane. Elsewhere I talk about how HFT incentivizes them to progrm in "5 Laws of parasitic robotics.' to at all times be predatory, parasitical, amoral, secretive and insatiable.'
David,
Okay. I can see your difference between gaming and gambling. There IS some luck in stock trading related to news events and how spooked/excited the herd gets, but it really is about us trading with each other.
I'm not a fan of the general public getting involved in first (public) issues of stocks. IPO's have almost nothing to do with a company's actual value as measured by their fundamentals. The way prices get set is (to me) a kind of fraud. I usually avoid them.
I'm not much of a fan of the general public acting as a source of venture capital either. Most will get eaten by sharks. Angel round funding is a little safer because much less money is involved, but that's often friend/family borrowing/gifting. Most people don't know how to do that either. Who trains them?
My best argument for low cap gain taxes is to encourage people to think about retirement savings and that means they really shouldn't be messing around with first issues or even straying far from index funds and ETF's. I don't trust pension plans and trust political safety nets even less.
[I watched a guy I liked wind up with nothing after his pension management company screwed up. The IRS and State tax people left nothing but a bloody red mist of his pension and his family was f$@#ed. His kids had to bail him out.]
I LIKE 401K's and IRA's and all that… except that time when my employer and the 401K fund manager colluded. We sued.
———
I'm with you on the exchange members, but only because the limits of old can be bypassed in a digital world. Most of us who would trade do NOT have the fiscal depth to trade directly in the markets. Our brokers do. We should hang the ones who see us as meals to be eaten, but there will always be a role for broker/aggregators due to the fact that trades don't finalize immediately.
If I sell 10 shares of XYZ, I have to hand over those shares. Someone has them recorded in my name somewhere. That happens to be my broker right now because they are trusted by other exchange members while I am not. We can fix this in a digital world with blockchains and digital certs identifying us and our property. Reputation will wind up as a form of personally issued currency.
And yes. You won me over on HFT.
I'm also convinced now that trades in Bitcoin are about gambling.
Paradoctor:
Endless labor can be honest. Ingest, excrete. I get up, I get down. Inhale, exhale.
I already dismissed eating and such as a different thing from endless pointless labor.
Sure there are things you have to keep doing over and over again. If you don't do them, you'll starve or otherwise die (possibly in a lot of pain). That's akin to walking on a backwards-moving treadmill. You don't make progress against the universe, but you do make progress against the negative motion that you'd be subject to if you didn't walk.
I was speaking more to "work for work's sake". If Sisyphus didn't push the rock, it would be at the same place as it was after he did push it and it rolled back down the hill. The day's labor accomplishes nothing. In such circumstances, I find not doing the work to be just as honest.
Now, if the rock rolling back down the hill was powering a turbine or something, the situation would be much different.
@Dr. Brin:
There is a YT video by Isaac Arthur discussing Is Uplifting Ethical?
Larry Hart said...
"While I know what you're getting at, I'm not clear on how the right-wing has managed to stir up such hatred toward "DEI". Had we already achieved a color-blind society only to have progressives drag us back down? It reminds me of the negativity they have managed to engender toward "BLM" and "Antifa". Black Lives Matter was a literal call for recognition that black lives do (or should) in fact...matter. And since when is it wrong to be anti-fascist? Yet, both of those terms have become as toxic as al-Quaeda or ISIS. It seems to me that the same has happened to DEI."
Since I became sufficiently aware of such things (my mid 20s maybe?) I've always considered myself to be liberal. By that I don't mean that I came across a Liberal Manifesto and decided I wanted to be identified with it, I mean I recognized my attitudes and preferences corresponded pretty well with what many tended to define as liberal. Many times I've been accused of being progressive, one time a while back by Alfred here on Contrary Brin. I don't mind that, I like progress, but I don't self identify as Progressive. Then again, I don't self identify as any "-ive," or "-ist."
I also claim the ability to be able to look at data from diverse sources and come to my own conclusions about an issue without allowing any source biases to significantly corrupt my assessment. I know that there are plenty of people that are either not capable of this or that simply don't take the time to do it, and that this is one of the reasons we in the US have come to being so close to failure. That's why I don't take it too personally when someone tells me that I've been conned by right-wing propaganda. Likewise, it is not my intent to offend you when I point out that your simple statement, which I quoted, and with which Duncan registered his agreement with, looks like reasoning of the sort, this criticizes DEI, therefore it must be right-wing, therefore I must oppose it.
But I am hoping to convince you, Larry, to spend some time looking into DEI as it exists and operates in, particularly, US universities. If you can't stomach conservative sources, that's fine. Though I think it would be better to include them because even though their motives and attitudes do often range from unfortunate to reprehensible, facts are facts and they do sometimes include facts and references to primary sources. But if you can't deal with them, by all means use only center and leftwards sources, only please include materials that are critical of DEI and also look at referenced primary sources.
continued . . .
A big issue you will find, many universities these days require DEI statements from staff and prospective hires, and they evaluate these statements for adherence to their DEI prescriptions when selecting candidates for hiring, promotion and tenure consideration. And by all means, make sure to read their written DEI requirements. Just one quick example, excerpts from an August 17, 2023 article by FIRE . . .
"Today, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression filed a lawsuit on behalf of six California community college professors to halt new, system wide regulations forcing professors to espouse and teach politicized conceptions of “diversity, equity, and inclusion.”
Each of the professors teach at one of three Fresno-area community colleges within the State Center Community College District. Under the new regulations, all of the more-than-54,000 professors who teach in the California Community Colleges system must incorporate “anti-racist” viewpoints into classroom teaching."
The regulations explicitly require professors to pledge allegiance to contested ideological viewpoints. Professors must “acknowledge” that “cultural and social identities are diverse, fluid, and intersectional,” and they must develop “knowledge of the intersectionality of social identities and the multiple axes of oppression that people from different racial, ethnic, and other minoritized groups face.” Faculty performance and tenure will be evaluated based on professors’ commitment to and promotion of the government’s viewpoints."
. . .
"“These regulations are a totalitarian triple-whammy,” said FIRE attorney Daniel Ortner. “The government is forcing professors to teach and preach a politicized viewpoint they do not share, imposing incomprehensible guidelines, and threatening to punish professors when they cross an arbitrary, indiscernible line.”
. . . An official glossary of terms released by the state makes plain that the “anti-racist” views it mandates are highly ideological. Indeed, the definition for “anti-racism” states that “persons that say they are ‘not a racist’ are in denial.” California declares that “color-blindness,” or the belief that “the best way to end prejudice and discrimination is by treating individuals as equally as possible, without regard to race, culture, or ethnicity,” is itself a problem because it “perpetuates existing racial inequities and denies systematic racism.”
Even a professor saying something as benign as “I grade my class based on merit” is suspect under the regulations. “Merit is embedded in the ideology of Whiteness and upholds race-based structural inequality,” the glossary claims. “Merit protects White privilege under the guise of standards … and as highlighted by anti-affirmative action forces.”"
Requiring DEI statements looks very much like a 1st amendment violation and is being contested in several places on just such grounds. It is also precisely the opposite of what universities are supposed to be, antithetical to the sort of environment prestigious schools proudly claim they strive for as necessary for best results in an institution of higher learning. And it is regressive. And this is just one of the issues with DEI, as it actually is in US universities.
If you can come away from a diligent and unbiased deep dive into DEI as it actually is in US universities today and still maintain that I've been deluded by right-wing sources into thinking that DEI is regressive, at that point I'd have to question your liberal cred.
But, no pressure. We all have only so much time.
Some News:
The Far Right AfD party has held a conference near Berlin to discuss deportations:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-67948861
Note that, according to the investigative journalists who infiltrated and uncovered the conference, the faschists also discussed deportations of Germans with no immigrant history, as long as they helped immigrants. Also, a couple of minor CDU functionaries participated, as well as the leader of the Austrian Identity Movement and a couple of businessmen.
The call for banning the party (which our constitution explicitly demands and allows) becomes louder, but no one has taken political responsibility to do so so far.
As we all know how the Madagaskar plan went, I am starting to feel uncomfortable.
Darrell E:
looks like reasoning of the sort, this criticizes DEI, therefore it must be right-wing, therefore I must oppose it.
Not at all. That was more of an aside. I'm not even particularly a cheerleader for DEI, but it seems to me as if it has been used by the right to malign something larger, even if you think that in this particular instance (stopped clock), they are right to do so.
I haven't been in an academic setting for 35 years now, and while my daughter is a college student, she's in a hard science and doesn't bring home horror stories (or good stories) about DEI. So I'm largely out of the loop. My spider-sense does go off when rhetoric is helpful to the Confederates, even if the thing turns out to be true.
If you can come away from a diligent and unbiased deep dive into DEI as it actually is in US universities today and still maintain that I've been deluded
Again, I don't maintain that you are deluded. I do think the right uses examples of "how it actually is in US universities today" as an excuse to broad-brush demonize anything having to do with diversity or inclusion.
That's what resembles what they've done to "Black Lives Matter," using a few riots that got out of hand to turn not only peaceful protests but the very notion that something is wrong with the way black people are treated into terrorism. Or with "Critical Race Theory," using the fact that some claim that everything is about race in order to demonize the teaching of anything about race.
About your DEI
Two things - the base idea behind it
The regulations explicitly require professors to pledge allegiance to contested ideological viewpoints.
Professors must “acknowledge” that “cultural and social identities are diverse, fluid, and intersectional,” and they must develop “knowledge of the intersectionality of social identities and the multiple axes of oppression that people from different racial, ethnic, and other minoritized groups face.”
If those are "contested ideological viewpoints" then so is the "concept" that the earth is not flat !!! or that water is wet
HOWEVER
I do agree that some of the actions taken while ideologically correct can have the wrong effect
In NZ we have systems designed to benefit the Maori people - who have been disadvantaged
Those unfortunately end up reinforcing some racism
IMHO using the systems to benefit the POOR would benefit most of the Maori who need the assistance while NOT reinforcing te unfortunate racist attitudes
duncan cairncross:
If those are "contested ideological viewpoints" then so is the "concept" that the earth is not flat !!! or that water is wet
While I agree with you on the specifics, that's not how tribal markers work in the USA today. Right-leaning teachers would refuse to sign an agreement with the statement "Two plus two equals four," lest it give comfort to liberals who believe in mathematical and scientific truths.
Even though many prominent Republicans have been forced or shamed into admitting that Joe Biden is president, none of them will say the words "Biden won the election."
IMHO using the systems to benefit the POOR would benefit most of the Maori who need the assistance while NOT reinforcing te unfortunate racist attitudes
Again, that's not how it works, at least here in America. When right-wingers talk about or hear about "benefiting the poor," they think "benefiting black people." The main reason they're so opposed to Obamacare is that they believe it to be a handout for blacks.
...It's like when pollsters ask whether someone believes the theory of evolution. They don't answer based upon what they know about how science works. They answer as to whether they are being tricked into renouncing God.
Darrel E,
accused of being progressive
No doubt I did. I can't recall why I did, but that particular chip sits precariously on my shoulder.
Fortunately, I'd like to be wrong about it. 8)
The distinction I make splitting progressives from old school liberals is whether they want active government involvement to right an historical wrong. For example, I can liberate someone by choosing not to coerce them… or by acting against those who coerce them. I tend to prefer the negative approach because it avoids concentrating authority in government which will be misused when the people I want wielding it lose an election… which always happens.
(Classical) Liberals liberate by withholding on the urge to dictate.
Progressives tend to act on that urge against other dictators.
Abolitionists who supported the US Civil War were progressives.
The broader group of people who wanted nothing to do with slavery were likely liberals even if they were very bigoted… which many were.
The Republican Party (born out of Wisconsin if memory serves) was highly progressive.
Teddy Roosevelt was inclined to be a Progressive… and that made him a VERY dangerous man. 8)
Anyway… that's the difference to me.
Or with "Critical Race Theory," using the fact that some claim that everything is about race in order to demonize the teaching of anything about race.
Larry, yes the RW DOES demonize Critical Race Theory (CRT). Plus, they do not give CRT legal scholars their just due.
BUT...
Ho boy, are there legit issues about CRT.
If, for example, you assume that law and culture exist to maintain a race hierarchy, now you will almost inevitably "see" racism EVERYWHERE. Use a CRT analysis to identify racism, and you're pretty much ALWAYS will find it bc it's baked into your core assumptions.
That's circular reasoning. I'm not saying that the top scholars fail to understand the implications of their core assumptions. However, in the field, lots of people "down in dogpatch" who try to apply CRT's core ideas (say, your average DEI office in a community college or corporation) will use that kind of analysis.
Darrell E's quotes from community college DEI materials sound like 50's-era loyalty oaths that Joseph Heller lampooned in Catch-22.
A lot of older people who were raised to be "color-blind," now find themselves accused of "white supremacy." By those standards, MLK's "I Have a Dream" speech is a white supremacy screed.
I can totally see how academics trained before CRT ideology became widely adopted pretty much nod along with whatever is fed to them by DEI admin so they can finish their careers in peace (and maybe can do emeritus research passion projects).
Re: Polls
People are getting wise to polls and pollsters. They can answer strategically and be otherwise cagey. "Considered accurate to within 3%, 19 times out of 20" is the line that pollsters use to justify their existence and payment. 'Considered' by who?, 3% is enough to elect a sociopath, and they never say that that 20th time could result in a gamma ray burst or it raining frogs. There are lies, damned lies, ...
John Viril:
By those standards, MLK's "I Have a Dream" speech is a white supremacy screed.
Yes, there are those on the left who consider math and logic to be too Eurocentric, and who think non-white cultures shouldn't be expected to be bound by such constraints. They're no friends of mine, and vice versa.
JV
Use a CRT analysis to identify racism, and you're pretty much ALWAYS will find it bc it's baked into your core assumptions.
You argue well, and hard agree with many of your points including the latter. (Diagramming sentences came from a region of my brain that is near some dusty 25 year-old memories of arguments playing pick up basketball after a dribbler initiates contact with the defender and they both call a foul.
I've got issues with acronyms and labels and never would have lasted in the military.
I've never had a DUI but have been trained in DEI, CPR, and CRT and I've been to REI.
My beef with REI is the prices. CPR you keep having to renew. Power points about "DEI belonging in your company's DNA" ...
You could probably build more culture with a D&D character alignment chart.
Are there left wing absurdities? Copious and dangerous! See the half hour sci fi flick “2081” based on Vonnegut’s classic “Harrison Bergeron”… a writer who pushed always for equality of opportunity, but warned against demanding “equality of outcomes." on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEgOuZzjI8o
Vonnegut’s warning complements those of Orwell, that the Left often goes nuts and eats its own. Both considered themselves socialists but were appalled by the incipient tyrannicism that fizzes from any cult, including cults on their own side.
Indeed, among the so-many crimes of today’s calamitous horror of a revived, neo-nazi/confederate/putinist/feudalist Mad Right, one that I resent almost above all is the way I am compelled to bribe lefty-flakes to maintain our alliance for survival. Alas, we must swallow our bile and plead with our own side’s cultists to stay in the coalition…
…and let them bully us relentlessly over matters of symbolism and nomenclature. Including reflexive spite toward straight white males, of course. And raging against the American Pax that gave humanity its only-ever era of hope.
But also mad doctrines like equality-of-outcomes. Putting up with all that crap because the coalition is all that stands between us and the end of any kind of civilization, possibly the world.
If the confederate treason-fever DOES get electorally and culturally smashed, as it always deserves, then we may get political breathing room. At which point till-now hypnotized decent conservatives might come back to the bargaining table. At which point, the PC bullies may be shocked how readily many of us will join in rejecting the symbolism puritanism of the loony leftist fringe... while continuing to push hard for a pragmatically better world for all.
At Caltech, DEI stands for Dabney (house) Eats It.
Having recently been in another discussion about issues around DEI, this struck me.
duncan cairncross said...
The regulations explicitly require professors to pledge allegiance to contested ideological viewpoints.
Professors must “acknowledge” that “cultural and social identities are diverse, fluid, and intersectional,” and they must develop “knowledge of the intersectionality of social identities and the multiple axes of oppression that people from different racial, ethnic, and other minoritized groups face.”
If those are "contested ideological viewpoints" then so is the "concept" that the earth is not flat !!! or that water is wet
One way to tell of someone is actually thinking about DEI (or its relations) - instead of just attempting to score some political points or fuel the outrage machine, or worse, deny the problem - is to ask whether these are "contested ideological viewpoints".
Certainly racism, as well as other forms of bigotry and discrimination continue to be problems. One can reasonably disagree with the specifics of DEI programs, or any other solutions proposed by "progressives", but then one must - if one is being reasonable - be willing to suggest alternative solutions to the problems. Far too many of the "right wing" critics of DEI seem to either to prefer just tp ignore the problems, or to think that racism and discrimination are just fine.
Unfortunately, while it is a noble sentiment, just saying "I will treat people equally" is not really an answer, given that so much of the rest of society does not treat people equally.
It's a bit like the "equality" statement. When I hear someone say "I believe in equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome", I often think (and occasionally respond): "Great! So you will help us achieve real equality of opportunity, then? Because we certainly don't have it now." Very rarely to I get a positive response. It seems that many of those making the claim don't really care about equality of opportunity, but instead want to ignore the problem (or are happy with the status quo).
In case there is any doubt: I agree that equality of opportunity and a "colourblind" society where everyone is treated equally are worthy goals. But one does not achieve one's goals by pretending that one has already done so, nor solve problems by pretending that they do not exist.
And also if there is any doubt: I do not claim that there has been no progress over the last 60 years. Just that there has been not nearly enough.
Dr Brin:
Vonnegut’s warning complements those of Orwell,
I'm pretty sure that Player Piano was Vonnegut's attempt at something akin to 1984, the latter of which would have been published only a handful of years earlier. Vonnegut's dystopia wasn't nearly as heavy on sadism as Orwell's, but it was the same kind of disheartening future for most of mankind extrapolated from then-present trends.
Much of Kroner's expository dialogue resembled O'Brien's.
Couldn't agree more with the several comments about Right Wing critics of DEI. But, I don't see anyone opining about Left Wing critics of DEI. Most of those are academics, because they are the ones actually living it.
Duncan, I don't think you understand what is going on with DEI statements. No reason you should. I don't know how folks in NZ feel about being required to make loyalty statements, as in loyal to an ideology, in order to get or keep a job, but in the US it is strongly frowned upon. So much so that it is prohibited by the 1st amendment. Some cases are being brought on those grounds, and they look pretty straightforwardly to fit the mold. And let's be real clear. The ideology is not "racism is bad and still exists." The ideology is about what constitutes racism and what needs to be done to remedy it. Though, again to be clear, in the legal sense it doesn't matter what the ideology is, could be wonderful, could be horrible.
The folks raising serious questions about it aren't right-wingers, at least far from all. They are liberal academics, in many cases people of color.
Duncan, to me it looks like you make a common fallacy. People that criticize DEI must think that racism and inequality must no longer exist, or must be against those things. All I can say is, really? That's the old "Have you stopped beating your wife yet(?)" trope.
Look, I said several comments above that I don't think this issue is even remotely the level of concern as opposing the RP and its supporters. I mentioned it as a minor "well that's not entirely accurate." The only reason I spent any more time on it is the responses I got. I find it interesting to see how biased many of my fellow liberals are. This is yet another thing that I blame squarely on the RP and its moneyed supporters. They have managed to so polarize our society that many liberals can't acknowledge troublesome issues on their side if right wingers have made any mention of it.
Darrell E:
But, I don't see anyone opining about Left Wing critics of DEI. Most of those are academics, because they are the ones actually living it.
I will defer to your first-hand knowledge of what's going on in academia. As I said before, I haven't been a part of that world for over half my life.
What annoys me is when perfectly good words like "diversity", "equality", or "inclusion" become so associated with a particular offense that the concepts themselves become toxic. To you, "DEI" means the practice of requiring loyalty oaths from professors, but right-wing media uses that to tar anything that has to do with social justice with the same broad brush. I've already watched that happen to other acronyms, such as anti-CRT being used to forbid states from teaching that slavery was bad, or anti-BLM painting a call not to gratuitously kill black people as terrorism.
I appeared again on Tim Ventura’s interview podcast, focusing primarily on the rapidly evolving Artificial Intelligence (AI) crisis with “GoLLeMs”. Or Generative Large Language Models, explaining how these Golems work … and how they cannot yet be sapient beings, no matter how well they mimic it. (Something more is needed. Like a sense of perspective, scale… and history.) I show how Sam Altman’s irresponsible actions may have done us all a huge service. And remember all those summer-autumn calls for an “AI Moratorium” just 5 months ago? I explain why they all have vanished into haze. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWf8lGV2XLI
Two problems with the DEI thing.
1. Loyalty oaths have a very bad history and ally The Party to interpret any divergence from standard incantation as a crime.
2. The implicit (powerfully) stance is the left's cvult of FRAGILITY. That practical improvements in rights and opportunities are not enough because symbols and language are undermining. Yes, there are small segments of humanity that cannot gird themselves to use new powers and tools to stand up for themselves, and they deserve some protection. But 'trigger warning' obsessions teach the 99%+ to be obsessively prickly.
There was some (incomplete) wisdom in generations who taught: "Sticks and stones, kid. Speak up! But then deny them the power to hurt you with words.
"Walk it off
I appeared again on Tim Ventura’s interview podcast, focusing primarily on the rapidly evolving Artificial Intelligence (AI) crisis with “GoLLeMs”. Or Generative Large Language Models, explaining how these Golems work … and how they cannot yet be sapient beings, no matter how well they mimic it. (Something more is needed. Like a sense of perspective, scale… and history.) I show how Sam Altman’s irresponsible actions may have done us all a huge service. And remember all those summer-autumn calls for an “AI Moratorium” just 5 months ago? I explain why they all have vanished into haze.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWf8lGV2XLI
Old Reader's Digest joke: stop straining at GNATS - Garish Name Acquisition Techniques.
To repeat myself, we aren't interested in equality of outcomes, only proportionality of outcomes. In any measurable endeavor, human abilities are not significantly greater than an order of magnitude between non handicapped people. Rewards should be proportional to that.
You argue well, and hard [to dis] agree with many of your points including the latter. (Diagramming sentences came from a region of my brain that is near some dusty 25 year-old memories of arguments playing pick up basketball after a dribbler initiates contact with the defender and they both call a foul.
Slim, the brackets I add above are what I think u intended to say from the context of you post.
Btw, ty for the kind words about my argument skills, but I SHOULD be fairly good at it since I was specifically trained in the field.
As for diagramming sentences...oh boy, I had an English teacher who beat that into our heads starting in 4th grade. He seemed to take joy in breaking down grammar, but in his defense, I can freak'n diagram sentences (and have a good fundamental understanding of grammer) 50 years later.
His name was Mr. Daughtry, and he dang well taught me stuff. At the time, I couldn't stand him, and wrote English class assignments that featured Mr. Door-Evil and his propensity to persecute students.
I'm sure he found them amusing, bc I did get good grades on them (to his credit).
Btw, I can TOTALLY see how such word splitting could come out of playground basketball. Though, my "upbringing" as it were, was more of the "no blood, no foul" variety.
It's also, REALLY NICE to have sharp debates without much acrimony.
Dr.Brin
At Caltech, DEI stands for Dabney (house) Eats It.
Dr. Brice to see to see such self-awareness from inside the hard sciences lodge. When you've been removed for many years and see the public "get along" statements with the insanity, you HOPE they're "rubbing blue mud" on their bellies (to paraphrase the late-great Robert Heinlein) but can't help but wonder if they're gulping the kool-aid.
Need to check out that link u mentioned. I did get the uplift books on my kindle, I haven't seen that series in YEARS.
John Viril:
I can freak'n diagram sentences (and have a good fundamental understanding of grammer) 50 years later.
Can't spell "grammar", though. :)
I enjoyed the latest sci-extrapolation podcast episode by Isaac Arthur, this time about “Ethics of Uplift!” Very thorough and thought-provoking. Though of course I’d offer addenda - possibly in a comment, below. Great series. Wow is Isaac thorough!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDb01ggyDfo
Can't spell "grammar", though. :)
Too funny! Karmic reminder for humility, I suppose.
Don Gisselbeck,
Rewards should be proportional to that.
Why?
Seriously.
If I'm paying for a slice of pizza, the price I'm willing to fork over is more likely to be proportional to how hungry I am.
@John Viril,
I was just funnin' about the spelling. Sort of, anyway.
I also had a particular English teacher like that. My sophomore year of high school. I already knew I was a nerd who liked and was good at math and science, but it was in that class that I realized I also liked and was good at English. Even the grammar aspect, which most students found tedious.
Almost 50 years later, I still remember what a gerund and a participial phrase are from that class. I also learned that the secret to my success is that I overheard her conferences with other students when she told them what needed fixing in their essays, and I just assumed that my essays also needed fixing that same way. I got As in the class by not only fixing the mistakes that I was making, but also all the mistakes I wasn't actually making.
Also, though it was unusual for a woman to do this in the 1970s, she had an entire section on science fiction as part of the semester. I first learned about Asimov's robot stories and positronic brains in that class. Also, my first ever science-fiction novel, which was Arthur Clarke's Childhood's End. Strangely enough, that book was set in the future year of 1975, which was about when I was reading it.
Good times.
Not sure why that post above was all italicized. Or is that the new thing?
The next career to fall to A.I. (even simple GoLLeMs): Proof Reader.
Next up: Editor.
One of the last: FORTH programmer (ironically).
Scidata,
As an ex-freelance proofreader, that field is already comatose. It is not, in fact, resting at the bottom of the cage. It is an ex-field.
Light editing is still alive, but may be on life support soon.
Pappenheimer
The answer should be obvious, to prevent the tumbrils rolling. Do you seriously think the great god Elon is 10000 times more skilled and hardworking than the average Montana rancher?
Is this a Brin hit in both senses?
https://freedium.cfd/https://medium.com/enrique-dans/why-airships-are-set-to-make-a-return-to-our-skies-04a12c78e900
Hi Don G
There is "rewards" and there is the power to do things
Elon Musk has done more than anybody else this century to "help" the human race - and he has built his team to continue doing that
He treats "wealth" and money as a tool to do things that he thinks need to be done - its hilarious that somebody who did NOT aim at great wealth has become the richest man in the world
He has had experience of getting something rolling - and then being turfed out of the drivers seat and his creation being stopped from advancing in order to make short term money
How else should we do it?
Who should be "in charge" of huge companies??
The people who win the game of office backstabber? (99% of CEOs)
The people who inherit great wealth?
Or the people who "create" the companies??
IMHO we should leave people like Musk in charge - BUT have a wealth tax AND have a draconian inheritance tax - massively progressive
First million - free
Up to 10 million - 20%
Up to 100 million - 40%
Up to a Billion - 80%
Up to 10 Billion - 90%
Up to 100 Billion - 98%
Above that 99%
10,000 times more skilled and hardworking - NO
100,000 times more EFFECTIVE - yes
DG I am all in favor of a FLOOR that poor & disadvantaged people cannot fall through ... and a CEILING that makes each added billion$ harder than the previous one for the rich, even those who genuinely are productive. And limits to inheritance to prevent feudal rule by bratty heirs from ever returning. And VAST and varied investments to ensure that health-education uplift is grabbable by all kids.
But the purpose is NOT to achieve equality. Rather, it is to prevent:
1. waste of talent!
2. Any chance of a return to gruesomely horrid feudalism
I have real trouble with would be sanctimony lords who use 'equality' as an incantation to attack allies and to set themselves up as ultimate arbiters of justice. That leads (yes) to Harrison Bergeron.
I'd argue over the number of nines" and their placement with Duncan, but not thei general idear. In fact, I'd replace the 90% dollars that are taxed with Fame Cred points, since that is what you ware working for, after your first billion... unless you are angling for POWER. FCpoints don't help that. Non transferable, you see.
the Ultimate Leader:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=C4awzE1_5UM
Have you read The Constitution of Knowledge: A Defense of Truth By Jonathan Rauch?
Anybody ever read this guy?
Mark E. Cooper – his space war Merkiaari Wars include uplifted species.
I think one of you forgot to turn off italics. Let me try...
Worked?
The italics started at 2:07 in the middle of Viril's post.
Mark E Cooper - bought his series in 2015?? - can't quite remember them - I have pushed them to my current Kindle
I will have a look
LH 6:10
The trouble with the tag BLM, and with the weak-tea ALM, is that these are aspirational, not descriptive. Black lives _should_ matter; _all_ lives should matter; but do they? One type of cynic would say that some but not all lives matter: SBNALM. A deeper cynic would argue the exact opposite: that all lives matter or none do: ALMOND. ALMOND is crunchy and filling but has a bitter aftertaste.
Likewise, I consider our binomial Latin species-name Homo Sapiens, the wise human, to be aspirational rather than descriptive. A more accurately descriptive name would be Homo Semisapiens, or Homo Mendax. The human half-wit, or the human liar.
Paradoctor:
"The trouble with the tag BLM, and with the weak-tea ALM, is that these are aspirational, not descriptive."
Sort of. "Black Lives Matter" is aspirational in that black lives (obviously) don't matter when many decisions are made. It's a call to recognize that black lives are supposed to matter.
Ideally, Black Lives Matter and All Lives Matter would mean the same thing. My way of putting it is, "Black Lives Matter because All Lives Matter." Or more to the point, "Black Lives Matter As Much As All Lives Do." Unfortunatly, as the right-wing is wont to do, they have co-opted "All Lives Matter" to mean, "Black Lives Aren't Special." The quiet part being, "Black Lives Don't Actually Matter Any More Than They Ever Have."
If the slogan were extended to "Black Lives Are Supposed To Matter As Much As Anyone's, So Stop Treating Them As If They Don't" then it would be obvious why substituting "All", "White", or "Blue" for "Black" doesn't make any sense.
I expect (aspriationally?) that when Dr Brin puts out a new post, the comments format will be normal again.
Italics is okay on my phone, but not in my browser. Not something worth much attention I think. Blogger bug.
Don Gisselbeck,
The answer should be obvious, to prevent the tumbrils rolling.
Are you KIDDING? Really?!
He's not stealing your money like an aristocrat of old.
He's not taking opportunities for him and his children from you like mercantilists of old.
He's not even rigging rules. He's SUING to tear some of them down. His wins in Court are the ONLY reason SpaceX has any NASA contracts at all.
His companies support a fairly large number of relatively happy customers who GIVE him their money in exchange for what they get.
Tumbrels? For that?!
There are MUCH better targets for that kind of anger, but they are a little more savvy about their fame.
A more accurately descriptive name would be Homo Semisapiens, or Homo Mendax. The human half-wit, or the human liar.
------
Heh. I appreciate the dark humor, but I've spent too long as a teacher to believe we are a species of half-wits.
Liars? Sure. We even lie to ourselves.
Half-wits, though? Nope. Children with no one teaching us how to do things right the first time. "Wolflings" as some author once pointed out. 8)
"It is not because things are difficult that we do not dare. It is because we do not dare that they are difficult" - Seneca
Musk strikes me as a Senecan. Seneca was also Nero's tutor/advisor. It's complicated.
Alfred Differ:
"Half-wits, though? Nope. Children with no one teaching us how to do things right the first time."
Something along the lines of Homo Bootstrapicus, maybe?
Seriously, we may not be as wise as we think, but isn't what gives us advantage as a species the ability to think steps ahead? To plot a course, as it were?
Homo Kasparovus, or maybe Homo Sulus, which is also appropriate ironically.
* * *
"Wolflings" as some author once pointed out. 8)
Great "Darmok" example.
As was that one. :)
Turtles all the way down.
David Brin said...
DG I am all in favor of a FLOOR that poor & disadvantaged people cannot fall through ... and a CEILING that makes each added billion$ harder than the previous one for the rich, even those who genuinely are productive. And limits to inheritance to prevent feudal rule by bratty heirs from ever returning. And VAST and varied investments to ensure that health-education uplift is grabbable by all kids.
While I have a certain affinity for Marx, it is important to remember that not all disadvantage has its roots in the economic.
If a person is black and is denied a mortgage or rejected as an applicant for a job (or perhaps not even interviewed) on the basis of their race (things that have been demonstrated to occur, even recently), then this influences their economic status, but it is not because of poverty.
And if this person's children have enough to eat, are able to attend good schools and have the other resources to do well, but then also experience the same discrimination, you have the makings of an underclass, even if we set a floor that economically disadvantaged people cannot fall through.
But of course, even real equality of opportunity will not achieve equality of outcome. Some people are better at certain things than others are. Some will be more successful scholars, or athletes, or business owners, or any one of a vast number of different things.
But we should not ignore the fact that discrimination (on the basis of something other than wealth) is also a "waste of talent". And that, so long that racism and other forms of (non-merit-based) discrimination exist, the would-be feudal lords can use this as a tool to divide people from another in order to serve their own ends (see the whole "MAGA" movement as an example).
I would also suggest that looking at inequality is not necessarily setting oneself "up as ultimate arbiters of justice" (though some people may do that). Rather, when we see significant differences in outcome that are not attributable to differences in ability, then that should raise questions. We know, for example, that women are significantly (sometimes vastly) underrepresented in math and engineering. And if we ask, we find that a majority of women report experiencing discrimination. And studies seem to demonstrate that instructors do discriminate.
Suggesting that some kind of "DEI" action might be warranted in this sort of case is not (or at least not obviously) pushing toward the world of "Harrison Bergeron".
DG I am all in favor of a FLOOR that poor & disadvantaged people cannot fall through ... and a CEILING that makes each added billion$ harder than the previous one for the rich, even those who genuinely are productive. And limits to inheritance to prevent feudal rule by bratty heirs from ever returning. And VAST and varied investments to ensure that health-education uplift is grabbable by all kids.
Over here, the conservative counter-argument to inheritance taxes would be "The Greens/The Left want to take the house of your parents away" and "This policy would kill small and medium sized family owned businesses". How would you address that?
(I am very much in favor of taxing inheritances, especially for nobility (still large landowners, especially in the agricultural sector) and some family dynasties like the Quandts, von Finkhs and Porsches who managed to keep much of their profits after 1945.
Gregory,
One of the problems we have (in the US) with these issues is that too many people believe America's 18th Century propaganda - the myth of the "land of golden opportunity" where anyone who is "smart" and "hard-working" can succeed. As long as people subscribe to this myth, then the logical conclusion to poverty is that they must all be dumb and lazy. Now in the 18th Century, after the passage of the Bill of Rights, there may have been a smidgeon of truth to this myth, but even then, the vast majority of smart, hard-working people wallowed in poverty. Their situation might have been better here than in, say, Potato Famine Era Ireland, but the actual difference has always been just a little tinkering around the margins.
An interesting thing about the phenomenon of racism and other bigoted isms is that all people have multiple identities, and by framing those identities differently we can get different outcomes. There was an interesting experiment a few years back where researchers gave math tests to Asian-American women. There was a control group in which the test was handed out without comment, a treatment group in which the test proctor commented on how "we all know women aren't good at math, but try your best," and another treatment group in which the proctor commented on how "Asians are really good at math, so knock it out of the park!" The (not so) surprising result: the group that was reminded of their identity as females scored significantly lower than the control group. The group that was reminded of their Asian identity scored significantly higher. Since then, other labs have run similar experiments with different identity groups and had similar results. Stereotyping is so ingrained in human thought (or at least, modern Western human thought - I haven't heard of similar experiments that used non-Western, non-state level subjects) that we even stereotype ourselves to the point of affecting real-world outcomes. This is the kind of stuff that may ultimately matter far more than any socio-political/economic dogmas we subscribe to.
Paul SB
One of the more damning things about some "Conservatives" is the belief in "Trash people", leading to law enforcement behaving badly, example:
https://www.npr.org/2024/01/12/1224449631/mississippi-jail-graves-investigation
Law enforcement wouldn't behave that way unless they're convinced the powers that be have their back.
Of course we're semi-sapient. We're smart enough to invent nuclear explosives, and dumb enough to use them twice as weapons. And since sapient species, if any, must pass through semisapience along the way, that explains the Fermi Paradox.
I could multiply examples of our semi-sapience. Climate change. Reliance on nonrenewables. Wars in general. Demagogues in general, Trump in particular. Market bubbles. Feudalism. We're smart enough to be able to make those mistakes, and dumb enough to make them.
Homo Semisapiens and Homo Mendax are complementary descriptions. Everyone lies to a crook, so they become fools; fools lie to themselves, so they become crooks; so the two converge in the middle.
Plato warned us that the wise must become virtuous if they are to remain wise. To this I reply that the virtuous must wise up, if they are to remain virtuous.
Only H. Mendax or H. Semisapiens would call us H. Sapiens.
PSB
"Stereotyping is so ingrained in human thought...that we even stereotype ourselves to the point of affecting real-world outcomes."
Reminded me of the John Bargh and friends '96 "slow walker” study. The subjects were asked to arrange words into sentences. One group was given geriatric themed words and the other did not. The test was then how fast the the subjects exited the building. The old age group walked slower. "Priming."
But when I looked it up to refresh my memory, it appears that a whole can of (healthy) worms has opened in replicating the study and you read arguments and corollary experiments for ages.
Semi-sapience implies there is an achievable goal where we pass into full sapience. I put to you all that we will not ever think of ourselves that way. We can always imagine being better at what we do. All those should'as and could'as will just change.
We are pretty bright and heading in the right direction with respect to most of what we imagine we could improve. Many of us think we should already be there... or that we should go faster... but that doesn't negate the trend that has emerged largely BECAUSE we are sapient.
gregory byshenk,
Rather, when we see significant differences in outcome that are not attributable to differences in ability, then that should raise questions.
Please don't forget the luck effect. Many, many successful people I've met got there with a large helping of that kind of luck that requires one to do at least some work. Not Lottery luck. Opportunity Knocks luck.
AD: “Tumbrels? For that?!
There are MUCH better targets for that kind of anger, but they are a little more savvy about their fame.”
Absolutely. I’ll turn my ire toward his doofus statements after disempowering the Casino mafiosi, hedge lords, carbon princes/sheiks, inheritance brats and parasites. I use Benedict Arnold as an example, without the treason thing. But those paying attention to the flashy/dumb/incompetent end of BA’s career ignore that he saved the Revolution THREE TIMES before that.
Erm will likely come home a bit if imbeciles STOP screeching in the face of an Aspergers guy. When has that ever worked?
DG: “And if this person's children have enough to eat, are able to attend good schools and have the other resources to do well, but then also experience the same discrimination, you have the makings of an underclass…”
All true… except that our cultural immune system is making ‘in’ what used to be ‘out.’ As Peel pointed out in GET OUT. (I REALLY like him!) That and all the adverts folks see now feature interracial couples and how long before culture catches up with law.
Answer WAY TOO LONG! And yet more quickly than any other large culture that ever existed.
Question: where did any of us say anything that you are disagreeing with?
PSB: “One of the problems we have (in the US) with these issues is that too many people believe America's 18th Century propaganda - the myth of the "land of golden opportunity" where anyone who is "smart" and "hard-working" can succeed.”
Nowadays? FIND ME ANYONE who says that. Hollywood has crushed that image. Perhaps way… way… too much!
Paradoctor:
"Only H. Mendax or H. Semisapiens would call us H. Sapiens."
Only the true Messiah would deny his divinity.
Start of a Howard-Beale scenario?:
https://spectator.org/the-premature-postmortem-of-the-2024-campaign-for-the-gop-nomination-debate/
Dr. Brin,
I have never met a conservative who does not believe that all poor people are dumb and lazy, and don't deserve anyone's help, much less government largess. I am often told that taxing rich people is unfair because rich people earned their money and poor people are incurably lazy and will just spend any money you give them on drugs or booze. I heard that virtually every day growing up, and I hear it all the time today. Providentialism and Social Darwinism form the basis of conservative thought, though few of them know these words. Conservatives don't conserve anything expect their biases.
Paul SB
Paradoctor:
Plato warned us that the wise must become virtuous if they are to remain wise. To this I reply that the virtuous must wise up, if they are to remain virtuous.
Jesus instructed His disciples to be as innocent as doves and as wise as serpents.
As Larry Hart sez:
Only the true Messiah would deny his divinity.
Addendum:
Anybody remember when (in)Justice Kavanaugh was being investigated for an attempted rape, and out of the blue he shouted something about how hard he worked for his degree? Completely irrelevant to his guilt or innocence, of course, but an obvious attempt to gain sympathy. The smart and hard-working memes run deep.
Paul SB
Post a Comment