Old, but for those who don't know...

[V.V.V.V.V.]

I was responding to Ack.

 

[AchrisK]

I was responding to Ack.

But all I said was:

In my post I said I had a theory about how liberalism ended up being the primary view in the universities, but it mainly deals with the social aspect. I had no clue, and even momentarily forgot, about the fiscal aspect. That article is very interesting, and seems to make logical sense.

and

@ cookie
Did you read that article? Do you have specific arguments with the ideas presented?

Plus you said, "you morons". I can only be one moron. So it seems that you were not only responding to me.

 

[Death Aflame]

What a shocker, viewer_from_nihil going around being fucking stupid again. According to the quote from the newscast, it doesn't specify misleading ads against Obama, but misleading ads in general, which includes misleading ads against McCain. Good job falling for propaganda from conservative bloggers.

And stop using "socialist" as a fucking pejorative you worthless shit.

.

 

[waif]

That message isn't implied at all. Obviously, running a misleading political ad is unethical and their should be enforcement against it, but there seems to be no favoritism expressed toward Obama other than what the author is trying to imply. This article is trying to imply that it's biased in Obama's favor, by adding his name to the end of this sentence

Barack Obama isn't even relevant to this, because it's a law that applies equally to both sides. If I say prosecutors and sheriffs across Missouri will enforce "Missouri ethics laws" and conduct criminal investigations of "anyone who lies or runs a misleading television ad" against John McCain then that is also true, all I'm doing is trying to bias the reading in the other direction.

Sorry about the rant, but this really grinds my nerves. I wish I could just read an unbiased report from an objective source.

This.
I don't remember when prosecuting slander became fascism.

 

[cookiecutter]

^Did you read that article? Do you have specific arguments with the ideas presented?

Why exactly do you think Robert Nozick is an asshole? And what is your point anyway? That has nothing to do with the plausibility of his views.

I read most of the article and it seemed like his point was that intellectuals (who he tried to denigrate by using the term wordsmith as a pejorative) were anti-capitalist (different than liberal) because they were pussyhurt that people didn't like them enough under capitalism. I think Robert Nozick is an asshole because he is a libertarian and actually present arguments like the one above seriously. Him being an asshole has nothing to do with his views (hell, Biden seems like an asshole a lot of the time) but I just wanted to express my distaste for him.

 

[AchrisK]

I read most of the article and it seemed like his point was that intellectuals (who he tried to denigrate by using the term wordsmith as a pejorative) were anti-capitalist (different than liberal) because they were pussyhurt that people didn't like them enough under capitalism. I think Robert Nozick is an asshole because he is a libertarian and actually present arguments like the one above seriously. Him being an asshole has nothing to do with his views (hell, Biden seems like an asshole a lot of the time) but I just wanted to express my distaste for him.

Actually I did not take his use of "wordsmith" as any kind of denigration, but as a way to distinguish them from "numbersmiths" and other intellectual groups, because that group is the group with the strongest aversion to capitalism. What word should he have used?

As I have said recently in many threads, our outlooks are based on our ideologies, which are developed by our life experiences. You summed up the article in a way that would make it very offensive to anyone who considers themselves an intellectual. The fact is, the things that influence a life can be very subtle and we are influenced over a lifetime.

So where does his logic fail? I am not trying to argue that his article is the definitive reason for the phenomenon. I am asking what other ideas are, and what specifically about what he said you think is flawed.

 

[cookiecutter]

His logic fails because he presents no evidence to support his claim. Where does my logic fail if I say that intellectuals are more liberal because they think John McCain is ugly? Those are equally unsupportable claims.

 

[Cythraul]

I read most of the article and it seemed like his point was that intellectuals (who he tried to denigrate by using the term wordsmith as a pejorative) were anti-capitalist (different than liberal) because they were pussyhurt that people didn't like them enough under capitalism. I think Robert Nozick is an asshole because he is a libertarian and actually present arguments like the one above seriously. Him being an asshole has nothing to do with his views (hell, Biden seems like an asshole a lot of the time) but I just wanted to express my distaste for him.

1. Dude, do you even realize that Robert Nozick is a wordsmith intellectual (or rather was, since he's already dead)?

2. The term 'wordsmith' was not used in a pejorative sense in the article. Where the heck did you get that idea? He used the term to mark out a simple distinction.

3. How was his explanation drastically different from typical psychological/sociological explanations? The idea that various non-rational factors play a significant role in belief formation and ideology has been taken pretty seriously for quite a while. It's certainly not implausible. To think that intellectuals are immune to this sort of thing is extraordinarily naive. Moreover, it's not like anybody ever just starts out in possession with some facts and just deduces from said facts which is the best political ideology. I highly doubt anybody ever comes to these sorts of ideologies in that sort of uber-rational way. Political ideologies are partly constituted by values systems, and I think it's pretty plausible to think that non-rational factors play a significant role in what values systems one will be disposed to adhere to.

4. So he's an asshole because he's a libertarian and because he offered an explanation that didn't consist of 'because they're really smart people'?? Give me a break dude. You need an attitude adjustment.

 

[Cythraul]

Where does my logic fail if I say that intellectuals are more liberal because they think John McCain is ugly? Those are equally unsupportable claims.

Bullshit. If you can't see how Nozick's explanation is a hell of a lot more intuitively plausible than the one you made up right there then you have a serious problem.

 

[cookiecutter]

1. Dude, do you even realize that Robert Nozick is a wordsmith intellectual (or rather was, since he's already dead)?

2. The term 'wordsmith' was not used in a pejorative sense in the article. Where the heck did you get that idea? He used the term to mark out a simple distinction.

Yes I do, but clearly he distinguishes himself from the rest of the intellectuals because he is obviously capitalist. I found the term wordsmith pejorative because it lacks the professionalism that is inherent in being an intellectual. It maybe that he didn't mean it that way, but right wing document often use terms like this to diminish the credentials of those they are attacking, so I am sensitive to it.

3. How was his explanation drastically different from typical psychological/sociological explanations? The idea that various non-rational factors play a significant role in belief formation and ideology has been taken pretty seriously for quite a while. It's certainly not implausible. To think that intellectuals are immune to this sort of thing is extraordinarily naive. Moreover, it's not like anybody ever just starts out in possession with some facts and just deduces from said facts which is the best political ideology. I highly doubt anybody ever comes to these sorts of ideologies in that sort of uber-rational way. Political ideologies are partly constituted by values systems, and I think it's pretty plausible to think that non-rational factors play a significant role in what values systems one will be disposed to adhere to.

I have no doubt that non-rational reasons affect people's beliefs, but I never disputed that. I disputed his utterly unsupported claim that the specific non-rational reason is that intellectuals are bitching because they are not valued enough in capitalism. That seems ridiculous to me.

4. So he's an asshole because he's a libertarian

Yes. Libertarianism says that if you are not fortunate in our society then you are on your own and deserve no help. That really offends me.

and because he offered an explanation that didn't consist of 'because they're really smart people'?? Give me a break dude. You need an attitude adjustment.

No. Please refrain from putting words in my mouth.

 

[cookiecutter]

Bullshit. If you can't see how Nozick's explanation is a hell of a lot more intuitively plausible than the one you made up right there then you have a serious problem.

I was pointing that neither had any evidence to support them.

 

[AchrisK]

Dude, I really think that you just don't like his conclusion. If someone wrote an article which you agreed with, using the exact same type of logical thought, you would be arguing that it was plausible.

 

[Cythraul]

I found the term wordsmith pejorative because it lacks the professionalism that is inherent in being an intellectual.

The term was just used to refer to intellectuals who use the written word/ordinary language as the medium through which they express their ideas. If the word has associations for you that you don't like, then I don't know what to tell you.

I have no doubt that non-rational reasons affect people's beliefs, but I never disputed that. I disputed his utterly unsupported claim that the specific non-rational reason is that intellectuals are bitching because they are not valued enough in capitalism. That seems ridiculous to me.

How is it utterly unsupported? It seems to do fairly well as an abductive explanation. How is the explanation ridiculous? It's prima facie plausible and that seems to be the most we can expect at this point in this particular topic. I think you're being unreasonable.

Yes. Libertarianism says that if you are not fortunate in our society then you are on your own and deserve no help. That really offends me.

You clearly don't understand the fundamentals of libertarian theory. Libertarianism holds that certain ways of going about benefiting the less fortunate are unjust and illegitimate. The idea that the less fortunate deserve no help is not inherent to libertarianism. Next time try actually understanding an ideology before criticizing it. Thanks for playing.

 

[Dak]

You clearly don't understand the fundamentals of libertarian theory. Libertarianism holds that certain ways of going about benefiting the less fortunate are unjust and illegitimate. The idea that the less fortunate deserve no help is not inherent to libertarianism. Next time try actually understanding an ideology before criticizing it. Thanks for playing.

Bingo

 

[The Ozzman]

I nominate Cythraul for philosopher-king. I think the government forcing me to give up money for people less fortunate is wrong. I don't think willingly giving up some money to help the less fortunate is wrong (ie, giving money to charities like Red Cross and such). There's an inherent feeling in all of us to help people without being forced to do so.

 

[AchrisK]

...

That's what I thought.

 

[Zephyrus]

 

[cookiecutter]

The term was just used to refer to intellectuals who use the written word/ordinary language as the medium through which they express their ideas. If the word has associations for you that you don't like, then I don't know what to tell you.

Fair enough. If he didn't mean that then I probably I placed malice where there was none because I am used to it being there. I should have read more sympathetically. Forget I said it. It's a side point anyway.

How is it utterly unsupported? It seems to do fairly well as an abductive explanation. How is the explanation ridiculous? It's prima facie plausible and that seems to be the most we can expect at this point in this particular topic. I think you're being unreasonable.

It's unsupported because there is no hard data that supports it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me he's saying that a group of people tend to have an emotional response to something and therefore don't like it. I don't know how he can claim to know what others are feeling or thinking. You can say it's plausible (I'll respond to this in a minute) but until there is some data that actually supports his premise, then it isn't worthy of belief. This comes from my general skepticism, not from any political belief. If someone said that wealthier people are pro-capitalist because they are inherently greedy and desirous of power, something I think is equally if not more plausible, I would too be skeptical until that emotional response can be measured and hard data attained. Until then it is speculation.

As for it's plausibility, I question this. I really don't think that the majority of a profession has the emotional maturity of children. I think it would be difficult to establish the reason for the trend that intellectuals tend towards the left wing, and it's certainly not just "because they're smart" but I don't think it's plausible to say that a large group of people chose one political ideology because no one liked them.

You clearly don't understand the fundamentals of libertarian theory. Libertarianism holds that certain ways of going about benefiting the less fortunate are unjust and illegitimate. The idea that the less fortunate deserve no help is not inherent to libertarianism. Next time try actually understanding an ideology before criticizing it. Thanks for playing.

I understand that that is the ideal of Libertarianism, but in reality, it means that the less fortunate are left to suffer because people like Nozick and Ozzman think that the private sector will take care of it. Libertarianism holds the individual as the most important part of society, yet in our society some individuals through no fault of their own have less opportunity than others. In practicality this means the poor do not receive adequate help. This of course hearkens back to classical liberalism under which the great suffering of the poor occurred. I actually agree with Libertarians on a lot of things, but it's this tenet that really disturbs me.

 

[The Ozzman]

I can agree with government funding for stuff like disability where people aren't really able to do anything at all. I don't think it's a prudent thing to just leave them to figure out how to do something to gain some income. I'm not too keen on how the disability requirements work, but someone here might be able to enlighten me on it.

I think a Negative Income Tax would work better than the current social programs now.

 

[Cythraul]

It's unsupported because there is no hard data that supports it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me he's saying that a group of people tend to have an emotional response to something and therefore don't like it. I don't know how he can claim to know what others are feeling or thinking.

Look, you're being overly-rigorous where the situation clearly doesn't call for it. Obviously, any theory or conjecture of any complexity contains some claims that are in need of verification. That's the whole point of scientific testing. The point is that the explanation is a prima facie plausible inference from the available data. Nobody is presenting this thing as a tested and established theory. It's being presented as a conjecture in need of further refinement and scrutiny. And I don't think any of us here took it as anything more than that!

You can say it's plausible (I'll respond to this in a minute) but until there is some data that actually supports his premise, then it isn't worthy of belief.

So what?! The degree of plausibility that it has means it's worthy of consideration. Nobody worth their salt would say that it's worthy of full-blooded belief at this point. You're making a big deal over nothing.

This comes from my general skepticism, not from any political belief. If someone said that wealthier people are pro-capitalist because they are inherently greedy and desirous of power, something I think is equally if not more plausible, I would too be skeptical until that emotional response can be measured and hard data attained. Until then it is speculation.

So what? Some speculations are worth considering, and all we can ask for at this point regarding this particular subject matter is prima facie plausible speculation.

As for it's plausibility, I question this. I really don't think that the majority of a profession has the emotional maturity of children.

He never implied that they have the emotional maturity of children! He claimed (plausibly) that intellectuals are groomed and find success under a system of reward/desert vastly different from that of society at large, and that they come to see the former system as valid, and thus come to be disillusioned with the latter. Sometimes non-rational factors (e.g. environment, upbringing, life experience, etc.) shape people's feelings towards various things. That's not a lack of emotional maturity; that's just a fact about human nature. Intellectuals aren't immune to that. They're not superhuman.

I understand that that is the ideal of Libertarianism, but in reality, it means that the less fortunate are left to suffer because people like Nozick and Ozzman think that the private sector will take care of it. Libertarianism holds the individual as the most important part of society, yet in our society some individuals through no fault of their own have less opportunity than others. In practicality this means the poor do not receive adequate help. This of course hearkens back to classical liberalism under which the great suffering of the poor occurred. I actually agree with Libertarians on a lot of things, but it's this tenet that really disturbs me.

Many libertarians would argue that under a libertarian society the less fortunate would be better off or at least no worse off and that government intervention does little to help. Now, whether or not that view is correct is an entirely different question. What's important is that many libertarians aren't the sort of people who just shrug off the problems of the less fortunate and say 'they can't hack it; fuck 'em.' As for me, I'm not averse to the idea of some people ultimately failing. Maybe that makes me an "asshole", but I really couldn't care less what some mawkish, maudlin individuals think of me.