If Mort Divine ruled the world

[Dak]

Just at the outset, I want to point out that none of what I'm going to say is to mean that the end of Jim Crow was a bad thing, quite the opposite. Not the prettiest opening statement, but I want to be clear on that. Now, on your so-called "pro-segregation" thing, there were in fact unintended consequences of integration which, naturally, negatively hurt the black community while giving the white community the feel-good of solving segregation and the related social ills without actually doing so. Wealth income inequality between white and black Americans has increase seven-fold since "integration," and that's not a coincidence. Already capital starved black communities already hit with the double whammy of legal segregation and white-flight from the cities following the Great Migration suffered another blow by losing their upper-middle class demographic to whites in the suburbs after integration. Black physicians, business owners, lawyers, and so on, left, causing banks and other means necessary to participate in the economy, the means to social mobility, such as jobs, or the potential to build credit in order to buy a car or receive student loans, or even the possibility to move away to somewhere more economically vibrant, to whither away. In many places, even the grocery stores left. The coffers of majority black school districts dried up thanks to our not accidental way of funding school districts, like local taxes, thus withering away another mean of social mobility. Black children lost first-person evidence of self-potential from people they know by name in their community. Black colleges and universities lost their best and brightest (and whites weren't suddenly filing into their spots), who were now able to go to the more prestigious historically white colleges and universities to put them into a position of also moving to the white suburbs.

Comparative enrollment dropped and funding dried up as state dollars moved to historically white universities, who then expanded graduate programs, causing many HBCUs to shutter their own graduate programs.

This is a very standard analysis of what happened to black America from the sixties until today, which even if accurate, offers support to a variety of interpretations. But I don't see how this really relates to the sentiments in the video though, at least in relation to the economic aspect. In the video, the school rep was explaining that there was an economic incentive to open enrollment to (basically virtue signaling) white kids from rich families, and the pushback from the student body was that having white people around would prevent them from acting fully black, or something to that effect. A bigger fear along with that was that if enough white students attend, there would be a point where the school "tips white". They could have just said "We will not be replaced!".

I'm sympathetic to both their position and their concerns, and find them both legitimate. That dead soul white kid definitely doesn't belong there (doesn't belong around the living in general). To the degree that there are cultural difference between people of different races yet approximately equivalent in intelligence and/or SES, those differences both cause discomfort and are also often sanded down to reduce that discomfort in an integrated setting. People should be free to construct and populate spaces which conform to their preferences, with preferred norms. This will necessarily lead to forms of de facto segregation of varying types. This is not problematic.

And mind you, this is all in the context of children of slaves whose labor fueled the industrial apparatus that sparked the emergence of the wealthiest country of all time, many of whom today continue to live effectively under the yolk of a terror state, just as their ancestors had. And so on.

I'll save you my "the US is one giant safe space for white people" comment because I don't want to get into that debate (I grew up poor white in the rust belt with a single mother moving nomadically from one bad situation to another, so, trust me, I know that poor whites suffer too), but even in these black safe spaces, white people are free to come in and are welcomed when their intentions are pure. I studied at a black safe space. I enrolled in courses that were safe spaces for women. I marched in a safe space for LGBTQ+ and enjoyed their company at their safe spaces in their homes, bars, and clubs. How did it work out when a "safe space for white men" marched in public and confronted people who weren't white men? And yes, that last point was just a rhetorical flourish.

Gotta give the big eye-roll to all of this, but obviously not worth arguing over for the 100th time (excluding your childhood experience obviously).

 

[viewerfromnihil]

This is a very standard analysis of what happened to black America from the sixties until today, which even if accurate, offers support to a variety of interpretations. But I don't see how this really relates to the sentiments in the video though, at least in relation to the economic aspect. In the video, the school rep was explaining that there was an economic incentive to open enrollment to (basically virtue signaling) white kids from rich families, and the pushback from the student body was that having white people around would prevent them from acting fully black, or something to that effect. A bigger fear along with that was that if enough white students attend, there would be a point where the school "tips white". They could have just said "We will not be replaced!".

I'm sympathetic to both their position and their concerns, and find them both legitimate. That dead soul white kid definitely doesn't belong there (doesn't belong around the living in general). To the degree that there are cultural difference between people of different races yet approximately equivalent in intelligence and/or SES, those differences both cause discomfort and are also often sanded down to reduce that discomfort in an integrated setting. People should be free to construct and populate spaces which conform to their preferences, with preferred norms. This will necessarily lead to forms of de facto segregation of varying types. This is not problematic.

True, I didn't really mean it directly relating to the video, aside from the little tail on integration and HBCUs. I thought the economic point was actually quite a bad one and doesn't reflect reality. White kids who do go to HBCUs, for example, generally receive scholarships, whether they be minority scholarships or achievement awards. The real market is international students, and it's largely on this basis that my HBCU has been expanding in terms of enrollment and campus size over the last few years (that and lots of political lobbying through guilting the legislature from a pretty rock solid university president). The bigger problem HBCUs have is retention and graduation rates (in no small part related to the fact that the high achievers go instead to more prestigious historically white universities), which the video doesn't touch on. Lower retention = less funding. My HBCU grants tuition scholarship to almost any CC student with a GPA higher than 3.5 in attempt to push these numbers up, yet the school hasn't being flooded with white CC students. I was the only white student present at the orientation for incoming students on the scholarship. If the rate of white students enrolled in HBCUs went above 10%, then maybe there's a place for concern, but that's not going to happen.

I agree with you there. People do tend to self-segregate.

Gotta give the big eye-roll to all of this, but obviously not worth arguing over for the 100th time (excluding your childhood experience obviously).

 

[Dak]

https://pressprogress.ca/jordan-pet...the-court-called-his-expert-opinions-dubious/

Here's actually some legitimate issues that reveal some trend in ol JP stepping outside of his area of competency:

“Dr. Peterson provided no evidence that his technique of personality assessment has been properly tested for the purpose it is being used for here,” Justice Mainella said.

The appeal judge noted Peterson “claimed, without any proof, that his assessment tool cannot be deceived while other personality assessments can be.”

“All Dr. Peterson could say is he hired university students to try and fake the personality assessment and they couldn’t do it,” Justice Mainella pointed out, concluding “that is not scientific validation.”

Some of the stuff in this article is incorrect in degrees, but the judge here is correct. University students failing to fool a job-oriented tool is not proof of performance in relation to forensic application without adequate cross-performance testing. Here's evidence of JP trying to apply his area of expertise outside of his competency. This is evidence towards a disturbing trend.

That said, his mass therapy work is still solid. He just doesn't seem to be cognizant of the limitations. Before someone critiques that lack of insight, the people I've seen critiquing that lack of insight seem to think that taking Derrida or Foucault seriously is proof of insight, and that arguing against them is proof of a lack of such. This is simply the blind against the blind, at best.

 

[Einherjar86]

Seriously? We can take someone seriously and still critique their work; but you find one thing wrong with French critical theory and tend to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I simply don't agree with your objections to Derrida and Foucault, but that's not because I think they're infallible theorists. It's because you and I disagree fundamentally on the central premises of their work. I have copies of History of Madness and Writing and Difference on my bookshelf, and your objections tend to be toward overly general polemics that one finds on the internet.

So no, I don't think that arguing against Derrida and Foucault proves a "lack of insight." But I think arguing against Derrida and Foucault because of some uninformed nonsense that Jordan Peterson said in an interview somewhere does prove a lack of insight.

 

[Dak]

Seriously? We can take someone seriously and still critique their work; but you find one thing wrong with French critical theory and tend to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Because we're talking about areas of competence and stepping outside of an area of competence. Personality psychology is an established area of competency. Forensic psychology is an established area of competency. JP stepping outside his expertise in the former to engage in the latter without consultation or supervision is easily demonstrably a problem. What is the essential competency (or competencies) of French critical theory?

 

[Einherjar86]

Seriously? We can take someone seriously and still critique their work; but you find one thing wrong with French critical theory and tend to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Because we're talking about areas of competence and stepping outside of an area of competence.

That's not an excuse for rejecting the legitimacy of these theorists. Even I have acknowledged that Peterson appears to be a successful psychologist (although I admit to repeating what I've read from others). I do not understand the logic of your "because."

Personality psychology is an established area of competency. Forensic psychology is an established area of competency. JP stepping outside his expertise in the former to engage in the latter without consultation or supervision is easily demonstrably a problem. What is the essential competency (or competencies) of French critical theory?

I'm not going to try and list or describe what I take to be the "competencies" of critical theory. If you have a particular example in mind in which a critical theorist stepped outside his or her "area of competence," then feel free to share it. But as far as I can recall, your objections haven't been about whether a critical theorist had any authority on a subject.

As far as the two names you mentioned go, Derrida was an expert in Western philosophy, and a philosopher of language and literature; and Foucault was an expert in Western philosophy and the history of ideas. Both of them pretty much stuck to those subjects in their work.

 

[Dak]

I do not understand the logic of your "because."

I'm not going to try and list or describe what I take to be the "competencies" of critical theory. If you have a particular example in mind in which a critical theorist stepped outside his or her "area of competence," then feel free to share it. But as far as I can recall, your objections haven't been about whether a critical theorist had any authority on a subject.

As far as the two names you mentioned go, Derrida was an expert in Western philosophy, and a philosopher of language and literature; and Foucault was an expert in Western philosophy and the history of ideas. Both of them pretty much stuck to those subjects in their work.

Well my only full reading of either was Madness and Civilization, which by all accounts I can find was pretty parallel to JPs tenuous treating of mythology, at best. Then we have on top of this the interchange with Searle about the needing to write 10% bullshit or whatever:

http://www.critical-theory.com/foucault-obscurantism-they-it/

And on this, Searle was much more charitable to Foucault than Derrida! So if we want to discuss areas of competency in philosophy, or simply in writing, there's certainly challenges to competency in either for those 2. Now, obviously we could introduce competency in obscurantism, but how can one begin to establish the guidelines for competency, and what is the gain even if one could?

 

[Einherjar86]

Well my only full reading of either was Madness and Civilization, which by all accounts I can find was pretty parallel to JPs tenuous treating of mythology, at best.

Madness and Civilization is a study of the history of madness as an idea (a truncation of History of Madness). It's neither a defense nor a promotion of mythical imagery or whatever; it's simply a work that traces how society's notion of insanity changed over time.

Peterson's writing isn't a critical assessment of mythical imagery in society. It takes that imagery as a means to interpret some golden rule of social organization. It's basically like using the Bible to critique social behavior without asking oneself why/how/when the Bible was written in the first place.

Then we have on top of this the interchange with Searle about the needing to write 10% bullshit or whatever:

http://www.critical-theory.com/foucault-obscurantism-they-it/

And on this, Searle was much more charitable to Foucault than Derrida! So if we want to discuss areas of competency in philosophy, or simply in writing, there's certainly challenges to competency in either for those 2. Now, obviously we could introduce competency in obscurantism, but how can one begin to establish the guidelines for competency, and what is the gain even if one could?

I find it funny that people who dislike critical theory take Foucault's comment as a serious censure of French academic writing around 1970. Never do we consider that Foucault was doing what Foucault did so often in other interviews and conversations: joking. I can just imagine a scenario in which Searle laments the odd style of French theory, and Foucault sarcastically saying "Well, you know, if you're not ten percent incomprehensible, you won't get published!" And knowing Searle, that cranky bastard would jump at any chance to slander continental theory.

But ultimately, whatever Foucault meant is beside the point. Writing falls in the purview of all who consider themselves publishing academics. No one faults Wittgenstein for his often idiosyncratic and aphoristic style in the Philosophical Investigations. Furthermore, competent and clear grammar isn't absolute or fixed; it evolves according to those reading. Different disciplines promote different kinds of rhetoric. When I read Derrida, I often find it clearer and more cogent than the proclaimed mathematical writing of positivist philosophers. Foucault and Derrida actually didn't like each other very much and had heated arguments. Foucault's interest in history and the treatment of bodies (biopower) aligns nicely with the concerns of Chomsky and Searle, and his later work in particular was quite liberalist in appearance. By contrast, Derrida was interested in language and meaning (not linguistics per se), and how writing itself often betrays the order it seeks to establish.

Critics of Derrida so often make the claim that all he wanted to do was dismantle the system or some such--break down social hierarchies, disrupt language, blah blah blah. This makes Derrida out to be some clandestine political activist, which is quite far from the truth. Derrida was fascinated by the discontinuities that already exist in language, not with advocating for discontinuity. He was fascinated in how, for example, the Greek word pharmakon meant both medicinal drug and poison/toxin, and how this took shape in Plato's writing. His essay "Plato's Pharmacy" is one of the most fascinating treatments of Greek philosophy that I've ever read, and it's not political at all! It's simply a study of language (and of Plato's suspicion toward writing).

 

[Mort Divine]

They're almost not even trying to hide it.

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2018/02/15/we-must-secure-border-and-build-wall-make-america-safe-again

We Must Secure The Border And Build The Wall To Make America Safe Again

On average, out of 88 claims that pass the credible fear screening, fewer than 13 will ultimately result in a grant of asylum.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

lol

 

[The Ozzman]

Well, I mean, it's illegal so...

 

[Einherjar86]

They're almost not even trying to hide it.

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2018/02/15/we-must-secure-border-and-build-wall-make-america-safe-again

They don't have to hide it anymore. It's what a lot of people want, sadly.

I find it important to recall Peter Watts's quote on Ray Bradbury:

"One of the things we tend forget about Ray Bradbury's classic Fahrenheit 451 is that the banning of books was not imposed against the will of the people by some tyrannical authority. The grass roots in that dystopian novel didn't want to read."

 

[rms]

Headline made me lol

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2018/06/glow-season-2-marc-maron-alison-brie

 

[Dak]

Sorry for the delay in responding, was in some intensive training.

Madness and Civilization is a study of the history of madness as an idea (a truncation of History of Madness). It's neither a defense nor a promotion of mythical imagery or whatever; it's simply a work that traces how society's notion of insanity changed over time.

Peterson's writing isn't a critical assessment of mythical imagery in society. It takes that imagery as a means to interpret some golden rule of social organization. It's basically like using the Bible to critique social behavior without asking oneself why/how/when the Bible was written in the first place.

The comparison was in that Foucault found what he wanted to find, and from single and/or dubious sources.

I find it funny that people who dislike critical theory take Foucault's comment as a serious censure of French academic writing around 1970. Never do we consider that Foucault was doing what Foucault did so often in other interviews and conversations: joking. I can just imagine a scenario in which Searle laments the odd style of French theory, and Foucault sarcastically saying "Well, you know, if you're not ten percent incomprehensible, you won't get published!" And knowing Searle, that cranky bastard would jump at any chance to slander continental theory.

But ultimately, whatever Foucault meant is beside the point. Writing falls in the purview of all who consider themselves publishing academics. No one faults Wittgenstein for his often idiosyncratic and aphoristic style in the Philosophical Investigations. Furthermore, competent and clear grammar isn't absolute or fixed; it evolves according to those reading. Different disciplines promote different kinds of rhetoric. When I read Derrida, I often find it clearer and more cogent than the proclaimed mathematical writing of positivist philosophers. Foucault and Derrida actually didn't like each other very much and had heated arguments. Foucault's interest in history and the treatment of bodies (biopower) aligns nicely with the concerns of Chomsky and Searle, and his later work in particular was quite liberalist in appearance. By contrast, Derrida was interested in language and meaning (not linguistics per se), and how writing itself often betrays the order it seeks to establish.

Critics of Derrida so often make the claim that all he wanted to do was dismantle the system or some such--break down social hierarchies, disrupt language, blah blah blah. This makes Derrida out to be some clandestine political activist, which is quite far from the truth. Derrida was fascinated by the discontinuities that already exist in language, not with advocating for discontinuity. He was fascinated in how, for example, the Greek word pharmakon meant both medicinal drug and poison/toxin, and how this took shape in Plato's writing. His essay "Plato's Pharmacy" is one of the most fascinating treatments of Greek philosophy that I've ever read, and it's not political at all! It's simply a study of language (and of Plato's suspicion toward writing).

Sure, he might have been joking, but it would be funny because it's almost certainly true. While I appreciate an explanation of differences between Foucault and Derrida, these explanations don't really answer my question. Maybe the work done can't be understood in terms of competencies.....yet there must be some idea of competency at least, because Searle isn't/wasn't going to be published in a Continental journal even if he bothered to try.

They're almost not even trying to hide it.

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2018/02/15/we-must-secure-border-and-build-wall-make-america-safe-again

They don't have to hide it anymore. It's what a lot of people want, sadly.

I find it important to recall Peter Watts's quote on Ray Bradbury:

"One of the things we tend forget about Ray Bradbury's classic Fahrenheit 451 is that the banning of books was not imposed against the will of the people by some tyrannical authority. The grass roots in that dystopian novel didn't want to read."

I'm a bit confused as to what about any of this was hidden. Trump opened up with Build the Wall, and it was his most popular campaign platform (although Lock Her Up came pretty close later on). Furthermore, I fail to see the tyranny in border enforcement.

 

[Dak]

 

[Mort Divine]

It isn't the illegal immigration or building of a wall that I was pointing out there, but the rather obvious neo-Nazi parallels.

We Must Secure The Border And Build The Wall To Make America Safe Again

We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children

Both starting out the same, both 14 words. Not enough for you? Could be coincidence?

On average, out of 88 claims that pass the credible fear screening, fewer than 13 will ultimately result in a grant of asylum.

Who uses 88 as a denominator? No one really. 88 is one of the more obvious neo-Nazi symbols though, 88=HH and all.

Both could have been coincidences on their own, but together? Nah. All dogs in the DC Metro area can hear those whistles loud and clear.

 

[Dak]

It isn't the illegal immigration or building of a wall that I was pointing out there, but the rather obvious neo-Nazi parallels.

Both starting out the same, both 14 words. Not enough for you? Could be coincidence?

Who uses 88 as a denominator? No one really. 88 is one of the more obvious neo-Nazi symbols though, 88=HH and all.

Both could have been coincidences on their own, but together? Nah. All dogs in the DC Metro area can hear those whistles loud and clear.

Now who looks like a crazy conspiracy theorist? Of course, when you do it it's not a conspiracy theory. It's REAL.

I remember when you thought it was absolutely absurd that there was any deeper meaning to the constant use of the same occult symbology in pop music, and said if anything it was simply trolling people like me. Well, consider yourself trolled.

 

[Mort Divine]

It isn't a conspiracy theory when the entire administration has been furthering the white supremacist agenda.

 

[Dak]

It isn't a conspiracy theory when the entire administration has been furthering the white supremacist agenda.

Like I said. It's not conspiracy theory when you do it.

Protecting the border is a basic, fundamental function of a national government, and enforcing immigration laws is a part of that.

I wonder how you're squaring the circle of a white nationalist agenda depending on a majority of Hispanic border patrol agents.

 

[Einherjar86]

The comparison was in that Foucault found what he wanted to find, and from single and/or dubious sources.

I don't consider this a serious criticism (and there's no evidence you can appeal to, since it demands that you access the author's intent). You could make this claim about any argument concerning any topic, regardless of methodology or data used. Comparing Foucault's and Peterson's methods, only one is truly critical. That's where I draw the distinction.

Sure, he might have been joking, but it would be funny because it's almost certainly true. While I appreciate an explanation of differences between Foucault and Derrida, these explanations don't really answer my question. Maybe the work done can't be understood in terms of competencies.....yet there must be some idea of competency at least, because Searle isn't/wasn't going to be published in a Continental journal even if he bothered to try.

Searle could publish wherever he wants to. He published in Critical Inquiry at the height of the poststructuralist rage; so despite what you think, the disparate writing and rhetorical styles of these thinkers didn't keep them from publishing in the same venues.

Competency goes through phases. There was a time when the rhetorical styles of French theory were in vogue, and people worked to be able to read that writing. In today's academic market, that kind of writing is no longer viewed as acceptable; but that doesn't mean those outside a particular discipline don't need to work to understand the writing. There's no such thing as unadulterated (or style-less) writing; that was the fantasy of the positivists, who ended up writing themselves in circles to try to try forge this fantasy (and the death knell of positivism was Wittgenstein's Tractatus).

There are passages in Derrida's work that aren't only clear, they're beautiful. So I don't agree with your position.

I'm a bit confused as to what about any of this was hidden. Trump opened up with Build the Wall, and it was his most popular campaign platform (although Lock Her Up came pretty close later on). Furthermore, I fail to see the tyranny in border enforcement.

I don't think it ever was hidden. Trump's never bothered to hide anything.

Also, it isn't tyranny (yet). For now it's just terrorism.