If Mort Divine ruled the world

[Oblivious Maximus]

Woke screenwriting software:

 

[Einherjar86]

So it's really just a matter of being PC. Fine, swap it with "better than" and "worse than" and the broad left still has the same problem.

"Better than" and "worse than" are still poor qualifiers if we're not specifying institutions or programs.

 

[CiG]

"Better than" and "worse than" are still poor qualifiers if we're not specifying institutions or programs.

Because the left is so against broad statements amirite?

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm sorry, and the "broad" right isn't? Honestly, what you call the "broad left" isn't any kind of homogeneous group or accurate metric by any means. We're using terms that are virtually useless in action. If we're talking about people who would take the time to actually present an argument, then the answer is yes--the "left" is against broad statements.

Also, this is hilarious:

https://www.chronicle.com/article/Skewering-Intellectuals/64113

In Intellectuals and Society, Sowell cleans up what is left and—in his eyes—on the left, intellectuals who influence policy. They are not necessarily "public intellectuals," but "writers, academics, and the like" who have enormous impact on society. The question of who these intellectuals are does not much interest Sowell. He specifies that his targets are less engineers and financiers than sociologists and English professors. Their influence on millions of people, he writes, "can hardly be disputed." He mentions the impact of Lenin, Hitler, and Mao, but does not explain how English professors influenced those figures.

Sowell is more eager to skewer intellectuals than quibble over definitions. His position is straightforward. Intellectuals do not understand the genius of the market. They ignore empirical evidence. They are elitists. They operate with ideological blinders. Ultimately, they are "unaccountable to the external world." They judge ideas by how clever or complex they are, not whether they work. "But no one judged Vince Lombardi's ideas about how to play football" by their complexity or novelty, writes Sowell, but by "what happened when his ideas were put to the test on the football field." Mr. Sowell champions what might be called the Vince Lombardi Interpretation of Ideas, or VLII. Test ideas in the field.

VLII might be a tad simplistic. After all, Nazism "worked" and yielded a bustling economy, until it was militarily defeated. Would Sowell say all was well with Nazi ideas until 1945?

Sowell likes history, but he likes it on Post-it notes. He also prefers to revisit stale arguments rather than intervene in current controversies. In a book about intellectuals and society, he manages to ignore the health-care and financial crises. Instead, he argues that intellectuals have misunderstood Herbert Hoover. Wouldn't VLII help us with the current economic crisis, to find out which ideas "worked"?

In a rare foray into something immediate or contentious, Sowell ducks. He discusses the Iraq war in just a few pages. His focus? The 2007 increase in troops under George W. Bush known as "the surge." Guess what? The intellectuals opposed it. Sowell employs VLII. The surge succeeded. "There was fierce resistance among the intelligentsia to news that the surge was working."

What does this mean, the "surge" worked? That Iraq has become a peaceful country? Sowell does not say. Even if one accepts that the surge "worked," what about the larger Iraq war and the role of intellectuals? What about the reason and ideas for the war? The plan to bring democracy to the Middle East? Is the aggressive foreign policy Sowell cherishes "working" in Iraq after eight years? Moreover, many "intellectuals," armed with facts and verifiable theories, supported the war. How does the accountability he champions apply to those foreign-policy intellectuals? This would seem a perfect situation in which to employ VLII.

 

[CiG]

I'm sorry, and the "broad" right isn't?

Of course. The right are the ones who can point out that a shithole is a shithole.

Honestly, what you call the "broad left" isn't any kind of homogeneous group or accurate metric by any means. We're using terms that are virtually useless in action. If we're talking about people who would take the time to actually present an argument, then the answer is yes--the "left" is against broad statements.

Hahaha. All that privilege rhetoric is so specific and detailed. Calling everybody a fascist, or calling Asian conservatives "white supremacists" is so pinpoint in its accuracy.

 

[Einherjar86]

Of course. The right are the ones who can point out that a shithole is a shithole.

In broad and general terms, anything can be a shithole.

Hahaha. All that privilege rhetoric is so specific and detailed. Calling everybody a fascist, or calling Asian conservatives "white supremacists" is so pinpoint in its accuracy.

You're just taking the usual platitudes and repeating them. There's nothing tactile here.

 

[CiG]

In broad and general terms, anything can be a shithole.

Compared to what?

You're just taking the usual platitudes and repeating them. There's nothing tactile here.

Nice broad statement there.

 

[Einherjar86]

Compared to what?

Anything.

Nice broad statement there.

How is a comment about something you said broad? ermahgerd

 

[Dak]

There aren't people whose sole job it is to decide what manholes should be called. It's neither difficult nor a costly to make such proposals. You're strategically picking a molehill and making a mountain out of it.

I laid out the costs across the board. Precisely because it isn't their sole job is part of the reason why it's costly. If there was a division of labor the cost could be at least mildly contained. That particular example was taken as a salient (agreeably extreme) example. But it's simply endemic of the inability to address real problems that plays out across the nation. Even more importantly, that example stands out because it's a recent college graduate who, through his "education," has been made aware that words matter more than concrete. I expect this problem to get worse as the "educated" are less knowledgeable than the uneducated about anything other than wordgames.

I've only read excerpts and articles by Sowell, but I've also read that he cherry picks data.

Also, Krugman's written a ton of academic books.

Yeah Sowell isn't perfect. Black Rednecks and White Liberals supposedly was really bad for cherry picking; I haven't read that book or dug into the critiques. Also you're right about Krugman; I knew he wrote Conscience of a Liberal but didn't know about all the other books until I just googled. Based on the excerpts from that book and basically all his NYT articles I have little faith his other books are much better. His articles get shredded from the right, and the left at times, and based on that one book, his books are likely lengthy forms of his articles (but this is probably the case for most similar writers, I only mean that the quality/character won't be different).

 

[Einherjar86]

I laid out the costs across the board. Precisely because it isn't their sole job is part of the reason why it's costly. If there was a division of labor the cost could be at least mildly contained. That particular example was taken as a salient (agreeably extreme) example. But it's simply endemic of the inability to address real problems that plays out across the nation. Even more importantly, that example stands out because it's a recent college graduate who, through his "education," has been made aware that words matter more than concrete. I expect this problem to get worse as the "educated" are less knowledgeable than the uneducated about anything other than wordgames.

Not more than, but words certainly matter as much as concrete. If you can prove me wrong without using language, then you win.

I still think you've attached yourself to a nuisance and magnified it into a travesty.

 

[CiG]

How is a comment about something you said broad? ermahgerd

You characterised my comment as nothing but repeating platitudes. A generalization.

 

[Einherjar86]

.... hahaha wat?

 

[Dak]

Not more than, but words certainly matter as much as concrete. If you can prove me wrong without using language, then you win.

To literally do that would require me to physically attack you, so that's ridiculous. If news reports counts (you'd have to read words of something that didn't use words):

https://www.npr.org/2017/08/01/540669701/10-years-after-bridge-collapse-america-is-still-crumbling
https://www.pothole.info/2018/04/the-cost-of-car-damages-from-potholes/
https://newyork.cbslocal.com/2010/12/14/poor-insulation-could-be-costing-homeowners-hundreds/
http://theconversation.com/the-old-...where-should-infrastructure-spending-go-68290

Etc. Etc.

I still think you've attached yourself to a nuisance and magnified it into a travesty.

It's an example, not a hill to die on. Berkeleyites deserve what they get.

 

[Dak]

That good ol slippery slope:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00918369.2019.1613856?journalCode=wjhm20

Largely based on an erroneous belief that individuals who are preferentially attracted to minors are necessarily sex offenders, queer communities have distanced themselves from this population over the past several decades. There are now those who object to the use of labels such as “gay” and “queer” by minor-attracted people (MAPs), raising the question, “to whom do queer-spectrum identity labels belong?” I engage with this question using data from my research with 42 MAPs, exploring their uses of queer-spectrum identity labels and the conflicts they have encountered regarding their use of these terms. I then discuss the potential consequences of accepting the use of these labels by MAPs.

 

[Einherjar86]

To literally do that would require me to physically attack you, so that's ridiculous.

Yeah, I get it. The point is you need words to make your argument about concrete. I'm saying that very fact makes language as important as resources like concrete.

 

[Dak]

Yeah, I get it. The point is you need words to make your argument about concrete. I'm saying that very fact makes language as important as resources like concrete.

Only humans argue with words. The bridge doesn't argue with you when it gives. The pothole doesn't argue with your car's components. The electrical grid doesn't argue with its components. The insulation doesn't argue with the heat or the cold. The riptide doesn't argue with you when it pulls you out. The predatory animal doesn't argue with you when it attacks you. Etc. Etc.

 

[Einherjar86]

And none of those things are "more important" than any other thing. The only way they become so is through language. The tide isn't more important than language simply because you can't argue your way out of drowning.

 

[Dak]

And none of those things are "more important" than any other thing. The only way they become so is through language. The tide isn't more important than language simply because you can't argue your way out of drowning.

Drowned you doesn't know that (nor does the water). Repairs you paid for doesn't know that. Buried under bridge you doesn't know that (nor does the debris). Air temp around you doesn't know that. Etc. Etc.

Your intended point is that "importance" is determined by arguing. You can't argue when you are dead. You can't insert yourself into arguments without resources, which could be taken concretely. Importance is determined concretely prior to subjective insertions, because subjective insertions require concrete ability to insert.

 

[CiG]

That good ol slippery slope:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00918369.2019.1613856?journalCode=wjhm20

Allow me to grease the slope further; the researcher Allyn Walker is a typical they/them woke Twitterati type. #resist

 

[Einherjar86]

Importance is determined concretely prior to subjective insertions, because subjective insertions require concrete ability to insert.

False. Who could possibly determine said importance? Importance is only ever determined retroactively. Just because subjectivity requires material conditions doesn't mean those conditions are more important than subjectivity itself.

Importance isn't intrinsic to the inanimate material world. Importance comes from the interplay of language and value. The laws of physics aren't intrinsically more important than airliners simply because they inform how air travel works. There is no objective hierarchy of absolute value in the nonhuman world.