Hanlon’s Razor, Revisited

Russell Michaels

Russell is inside his own mind, a comfortable yet silly place. He is also on Twitter.

Related Post Roulette

76 Responses

  1. Oscar Gordon says:

    First off, does Chomsky owe you money or something?

    Second, were you going to talk about politicians being incompetent versus evil? Because you looked like you were working up a good head of steam, then petered out at the end with a factoid about holiday picnics being slightly cheaper.Report

    • Chip Daniels in reply to Oscar Gordon says:

      I wanna hear about all the Obama scandals! Tell us about the Obama scandals!!Report

      • Russell Michaels in reply to Chip Daniels says:

        Check out one of the many articles I have mentioned them. My Election Rant, for one.Report

      • North in reply to Chip Daniels says:

        Seriously. Obama who’s “myriad scandals” amount to, what- at the very worst, some middle level entities in the federal bureaucracy making mistakes? Then Russell goes on to say that the last great President is the Grampa of Iran Contra? I chuckled aloud.Report

        • Russell Michaels in reply to North says:

          That’s hilarious that you assign such incompetence to Obama.Report

          • North in reply to Russell Michaels says:

            I mean, I respect your need to spin. How many of Obama’s cabinet secretaries had to resign in disgrace? How many charges were the GOP able to dig up and apply once they had unitary control of the government in ’16? How many charges did they manage to make stick in general? I’m thinking zero? Is zero on the board?Report

            • Chip Daniels in reply to North says:

              I still remember where I was when I saw Obama in the tan suit.Report

              • Pinky in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Who actually complained about that, though? I remember watching Red Eye at the time, and they were making fun of the idea that anyone complained about it.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Pinky says:

                Conservatives disapproved of Obama’s decision to wear the tan suit. Conservative Republican Representative Peter King of New York called Obama’s wearing of the suit unpresidential, and stated that “There’s no way, I don’t think, any of us can excuse what the president did yesterday. I mean, you have the world watching.”[16][6] According to Conservative Justin Sink of The Hill, most people viewed Obama’s fashion choice to be a mistake.[17]

                During the presidency of Donald Trump, the tan suit controversy was frequently referred to by Trump critics to draw a contrast between Obama and Trump. These critics contrasted the attention devoted to this trivial issue under the Obama administration with various examples of Trump’s actions that broke more substantial political norms while generating less coverage, and argued that the episode illustrated how Obama’s presidency was covered in comparison to Trump’s.[23][24]

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama_tan_suit_controversyReport

              • Pinky in reply to Philip H says:

                I thought I was right, but thanks for confirming it. You and Wikipedia provide three pieces of evidence. One, a quote from Peter King. Two, the fact that people memed about it. Three, and this is interesting that Wikipedia messed up with quote. The guy in The Hill referred to Obama’s choice was a fashion mistake, not Obama’s fashion choice as a mistake.Report

        • JC in reply to North says:

          If we get to blame “Everything that happened under Dubya” to His Reign…
          Then, we can merrily assign COVID-19 to Obama (via Fauci authorizing paying Wuhan to do our research for us, because Ft. Dietrich refused).
          (Personally, I think this is a mistake, but if you want to stand on Fauci being “some mid-level bureacrat” routing around Concentrated, Weaponized Autism… be my guest).Report

          • JS in reply to JC says:

            Oh hey, a new conspiracy nut. Fan-tastic.

            This comment section is really going to the dogs these days.Report

          • North in reply to JC says:

            That is a fascinating collection of jumps you’ve made but I’m afraid I only have a vague idea of what half of them even mean.Report

            • JC in reply to North says:

              1) Ft. Dietrich was researching bat coronaviruses. (This is not outside Ft. Dietrich’s purview).
              2) Ft. Dietrich, on safety review, says “This is too dangerous” — and bounces it up to the commander in chief.
              3) Obama says “Okay, we’re not gonna do that anymore.” (Typical behavior for most commanders in chief deferring to subject matter experts).
              4) Fauci goes behind Obama (and the military’s) back, and hires Wuhan labs (which has a TERRIBLE safety record) to research coronavirus.

              … I don’t particularly hold Obama accountable for this (although this was far from the only time people snuck around behind his back).

              I do hold Obama accountable for putting children in cages, he signed off on that one. [and for good reason. It’s why children are back in cages right now, Biden’s PR be damned.]Report

              • Philip H in reply to JC says:

                4) Fauci goes behind Obama (and the military’s) back, and hires Wuhan labs (which has a TERRIBLE safety record) to research coronavirus.

                That’s quite a stretch there given the administrative and journalistic record. Remember correlation (two things occurring at the same time) isn’t causation.

                We can start wit the fact that the $600K that went to Wuhan was part of a larger $3.7M grant to Eco Health. A grant which was funded after extensive peer review and in accordance with then in place NIH guidelines. So while $600K is not nothing, it wasn’t a huge sum. and, legally, federal agencies don’t “hire” people by grants. Feds give grants for the benefit of the recipients in accordance with some legal mandate. There’s also the inconvenient fact that a federal agency giving a research grant isn’t exactly sneaking around behind the president’s back.

                See, playing fast and loose with easily rebuttable stuff like that makes any other real issue you may have imbedded in your comments really hard to believe.

                https://www.factcheck.org/2021/05/the-wuhan-lab-and-the-gain-of-function-disagreement/Report

              • DensityDuck in reply to Philip H says:

                liberals: “$600K is a paltry sum, hardly worth getting out of bed for, certainly not enough to be considered support

                also liberals: “this politician’s campaign got a $20K donation from the NRA, that means he’s a bought-and-paid-for SHILL of the MURDER-FETISH INDUSTRYReport

    • Russell Michaels in reply to Oscar Gordon says:

      I did mention I think Chomsky is the worst living American who isn’t an outright criminal. In the first article I did on him.Report

      • Oscar Gordon in reply to Russell Michaels says:

        Yeah, I know ya did, but damn man, you do not pass up an opportunity to put in a dig that he’ll never see.Report

        • Russell Michaels in reply to Oscar Gordon says:

          Why shouldn’t I? As a Hayekian, no man should piss me off more than the man who willingly regurgitated commie propaganda that made Americans not realize how bad communism really was. Evil is the only word for it.Report

          • Philip H in reply to Russell Michaels says:

            Russia never practiced actual Marxist as written Communism. the USSR practiced hard authoritarianism wrapped in Communist dogma. There is a distinct difference.Report

            • Oscar Gordon in reply to Philip H says:

              Has anyone ever practiced Marxist Communism without the authoritarian aspect? I mean, isn’t a key criticism of Marxist Communism that the authoritarianism is almost required in order to prevent the inevitable defections that will occur?Report

              • Philip H in reply to Oscar Gordon says:

                That is a criticism, and one which I am not sure we ever really will dispense with, on account of no allegedly Marxist Communist state actually practicing Marxist Communism. Can’t say whether its a valid criticism when you don’t have anything but his theories to criticize.

                As a student of history I am beyond weary of people refusing to call the USSR what it actually was because they think they can score cheap unearned political points. If you have read Marx, all of his major concepts save the potential authoritarianism were cast by the way side from Stalin on so a small elite could (and still do) make all the gains from the society. Again, hard authoritarianism in Marxist propaganda.Report

              • Pinky in reply to Philip H says:

                If hundreds of people died jumping off a building trying to fly, can we criticize the guy suggesting it? Or do we have to say that the jumpers merely failed in execution?Report

              • Philip H in reply to Pinky says:

                if tens of thousands of people die because they believe COVID is no big deal after an overly spray tanned con man told them it was no big deal do we blame the con man, or do we shout “Freedom.”Report

              • Pinky in reply to Philip H says:

                So you’ve got nothing related to the topic? If we’re going to talk about random things, I’d like to talk about tuna. I never got to know the different breeds. Or is it species?Report

              • North in reply to Philip H says:

                This is just an awful hill to try and fight on though. Libertarians, like Marxists can’t get anyone to set up and live under a true libertopia government for much the same reason Marxists can’t get anyone to live under a true Marxiast system- because they don’t work well and/or no one actually wants to live under one absent compulsion. From the local bus shelter to communes to Marxist attempts at states, it’s not worked at all unless ya yank out the guns and even then, it eventually fails. The libertarians, on the same hand, can’t even get a fishin Seastead launched.

                Why on earth are ya trying to do the “it just hasn’t be implemented correctly yet” dance with Marx?Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to North says:

                If you want to see the true face of Communism in practice, see China, and Russia.

                If you want to see the true face of Capitalism in practice, see China, and Russia.Report

              • North in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                I think that’s a fair cop.Report

              • Pinky in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Communism. see China, Russia, North Korea, Cuba. Yugoslavia, Venezuela.

                Capitalism, see China, Russia, US, EU, India, Japan.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Pinky says:

                Right.
                Capitalism: See also, Haiti, Congo, Somalia, Yemen;

                So the question becomes, what is the predictive effect of markets on the outcome of a nation, when both the very best and very worst nations on earth both use markets as their fundamental economic organization?

                If Norway, China, Russia, and Haiti all organize their economies according to markets, what is the variable which makes them different ? It certainly isn’t “markets”.

                If Norway, Canada, Cuba and Venezuela all have social welfare systems, what is the variable that makes them different? It certainly isn’t “Government run programs”.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                I, for my part, am interested in seeing where Chip takes this.Report

              • Pinky in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                I don’t know for a fact that Russia is doing market economics badly. They’re doing political governance badly.

                I know I always go back to Douglass North on this stuff, but I really think he nailed it. If the institutions permit production to be rewarded, you’ll see production. If the institutions fail to reward production, production will struggle. I’m not going to deny that China has some elements of a market economy, but the institutions (broadly defined to include anything from trade law to social convention to functioning airports) don’t reward production.Report

              • LeeEsq in reply to Pinky says:

                Russia couldn’t slow walk into market economies the way China could because none of the last few Soviet leaders had the absolute power Deng did in China. They had to deal with big powerful elements with the Soviet Communist Party that really opposed reform.

                Once the Soviet Union fell, there was a lot of external pressure to fast walk the market reforms. This didn’t work out so well because the people best posed to take over the state businesses tended to be people of questionable ethics with a lot of connections to the political power structure.

                Deng’s lack of opposition in China allowed him to slow walk the reform of the system by first liberalizing agriculture and some key urban centers on the coast and building from there. There was still a lot of corruption and questionable business deals but not to the extent of Russia.

                I think it also helped that China was only twenty-nine or thirty years into Communism rather than nearly sixty like the Soviet Union was when the reform started. More Chinese probably remembered what a non-Communist economy was like.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Pinky says:

                Where I’m going is to falsify the idea that economic systems are predictive.
                Market economies can exist in failed dystopia nations as easily as free prosperous ones.

                China and Russia have implemented both planned and market economies and yet still remain oppressive states, with no prospect of ever becoming liberal.

                So in this light, the epic struggle of the 20th century between Marx and capitalism seems entirely irrelevant.Report

              • Pinky in reply to Pinky says:

                To Lee and Chip –

                Markets which tend toward freedom for the buyers and sellers are not a sufficient condition for political freedom or economic prosperity. They are a necessary precondition for sustained economic prosperity. Political freedom is likely a necessary condition for free markets. Law is a necessary precondition for sustained free markets.

                (Well, that was a tight formulation. I can’t wait to look at it tomorrow and see if I’m happy with it.)Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Pinky says:

                China is demonstrating that markets don’t necessarily need political freedom.

                It may very well be true that political freedom can produce more prosperity than not, but it isn’t at all clear that this matters much.

                There are examples all over the world including right here in America of people choosing to be less free and less prosperous, if some other essential desire is met.Report

              • Pinky in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                China is experimenting with how close a country can get to free markets without political freedom. They’re finding that you can’t maintain quality control without free speech, for one thing. And don’t know how open the markets are in the Uyghur concentration camps, but maybe they do have brisk trading there.

                People can choose to be less free and less prosperous. That’s I think a different conversation. The question here is what are the preconditions to prosperity.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to North says:

                There are a handful of them who do not argue for libertopia but, instead, just argue for stuff like “reschedule weed!”

                And then they get to argue against people who point out that “you just want to legalize meth!” and “we have a treaty with the EU saying that marijuana will remain illegal” and “Trump didn’t legalize marijuana either!”Report

              • North in reply to Jaybird says:

                Oh absolutely! Libertarians are as varied as other groups of people. Actually, I take it back, I think they may be more varied than other groups of people, God(ess?) love em!Report

              • Pinky in reply to North says:

                If he’s doing it because he’s being loyal to the leftward 40%, then it’s tactically stupid. I assume he’s doing it because he believes it. There’s always time for a correction, but without one, what else am I supposed to think?Report

              • North in reply to Pinky says:

                Tis why I inquired.

                Though, I’d note, that considering that Bernie got only 26.22% of the votes in the Dem primary in 2020 and making the HUGE charitable leap that all of them were marxists leaves your 40% number massively overlarge.Report

              • Pinky in reply to North says:

                Sorry, lack of clarity. I meant that if he’s feeling the need to defend everything that shows up on his side of the divide he could be defending the wackiest of that camp. It’d be like me rallying to defend Peter King. (I really should look that up. I think he was nuts, but I could be confusing him with Steve King.)

                ETA: That kind of defending everyone on your 40% of the battlefield is one of the worst things about contemporary politics. Or more precisely, the attacking of anyone on the other side as a retaliation against any attack on someone on your side – because we really don’t defend any more as much as counter attack.Report

              • LeeEsq in reply to North says:

                Another similarity is that both believe that most people deep down want libertarianism or Marxism despite any evidence you present against them.Report

              • North in reply to LeeEsq says:

                What? The actual voters in this country aren’t all Eric Loomis clones?!?!?1Report

              • LeeEsq in reply to North says:

                I don’t think even Eric Loomis believes that most voters in the country are like him. He doesn’t suffer from this particular delusion.

                There are other Marxists and libertarians that really do believe deep down the citizens, or at least the small groups they consider to be the real true citizens, believe as they do. Like a lot of libertarians don’t understand that having absolute freedom to build on your property is not actually popular policy even among most property owners.Report

            • Russell Michaels in reply to Philip H says:

              *Dismissive gesture.*Report

            • LeeEsq in reply to Philip H says:

              Marx might have thought that communism was inevitable and you just needed to wait for the historical process to work itself out but he also formed a lot of revolutionary organizations to jump start communism.Report

      • JC in reply to Russell Michaels says:

        Chomsky has about as much power as an led light bulb.
        Bezos, on the other hand, has as much power as an outdoor flood light.
        If Bezos’ actions indirectly cause the unemployment rate of America to increase… he is responsible for a good deal of deaths (pull the Federal Reserve’s numbers on the suicide rate)…
        Now, perhaps you call him an outright criminal…
        But if not, I’ma go ahead and nominate Jeff Bezos as “worse than Chomsky”Report

        • Pinky in reply to JC says:

          I don’t know exactly what actions we’re accusing either man of, but in general I think that messing with someone’s thinking causes more harm than messing with someone’s employment.Report

  2. Pinky says:

    It’s of a piece with Russell’s provocative style.Report

  3. Susara Blommetjie says:

    I’m not sure how to parse these:
    “Sociology, in modern academia, is the undermining that America is special or better than any other country in the world. *America is special*.”

    If I drop the ‘the’ and add an object for ‘undermining’ I read it as
    “Sociology, […] is undermining _the idea_ that America is special or better than any other country in the world”.
    Is this the correct interpration?
    Followed by the statement (opinion? trivially, obviously true fact?) ‘America is special’.
    The argument flows into ‘Sociology is a science the same way creationism is science. …It turned science into belief by hijacking the scientific method and reversing it.”

    So I read the argument as follows:
    1) sociology is undermining the idea that America is special or better than any other country in the world
    2) however, in fact, America is special
    3) sociology came to this false conclusion regarding America’s greatness because it’s thrown the scientific method to the dogs

    So do I understand correctly that, by implication, you recon it is scientifically provable that America is special and better than any other country in the world?

    PS I happen to actually agree with your opinion on sociology throwing science to the dogs, it’s just the wider argument I’m not sure about.Report

    • Pinky in reply to Susara Blommetjie says:

      It’s safe to say that the US (a) was unique at the time of its founding, as a nation united by a creed rather than a people, (b) has proven very stable and long-lasting, serving as a sign to others that its founding principles were sound, and (c) presently ranks so high in measures of strength and influence that in nearly every situation one wouldn’t say “taking a typical example, we can look at America…”.Report

      • Susara Blommetjie in reply to Pinky says:

        So ok, I’m reading the argument correctly.

        I don’t question that America is a good country with lots going for it. Net migration numbers don’t lie; when more people are knocking at the doors to come in than packing up to leave then it’s got to be a better place than many others.

        It’s just the confidence in being the absolute best ever and absolute most special ever that has a disonant ring. But perhaps after considering a wide range of national histories stretching over the past 4 millenia, and taking into account various aspects of specialness and ‘bestness’, one may indeed come to that conclusion.

        It’s possible, just not trivially obvious, in my opinion.Report

      • JS in reply to Pinky says:

        (A) America was founded on cribbed together principles from primarily European philosophers using ideas the Greeks and Romans had happily used for years. America didn’t come up with something new — we borrowed from others, rather liberally.

        I’m not sure what your definition of “creed” is, but America was mostly founded by unhappy Englishmen. Which makes their founding commonplace, as rebellion against the King in favor of a new government is….a really common story.

        Quite a few colonies tossed aside their original government in favor of various creeds in that period. Some of them even abolished slavery in the process.

        As for (b) — America is an infant, as far as countries go. We are not particularly long lasting or terribly stable — if you wan tan example, we went barely a century before a massive civil war.

        As for (c) we are quite large and do have a lot of resources, and we were mostly left out of the massive and wide-scale industrial and human destruction most of our peer countries endured in those two spots of unpleasantness in the 1900s.

        Your claim America is somehow special — at least beyond the limits to which any unique and individual country is special — is…well, sure. If you ignore facts, history, reality, and anything more nuanced than what a 3rd grader learns.Report

        • Pinky in reply to JS says:

          (A) stands. I said it was unique at the time of its founding. It took quite a bit from ancient systems (which had also served as models at times throughout European history), but did so without a people. Our question was not primarily “how should the American people be governed”, but “should there be an American people”. Our creed, our mission statement, is the Declaration of Independence.

          Your reply to (C) confirms my point. You cite different reasons for America being unique, but you don’t question the idea that America is unique.

          Staying on (A) but extending to (B), how many colonies had broken away before the French Revolution? Of those, how many abolished slavery in the process? (Haiti comes to mind.) How many countries larger than San Marino have had a continuous government since our founding?Report

          • Mike Schilling in reply to Pinky says:

            Though we’ll look like medieval England

            Henry VI 1422 – 1461
            Edward IV 1461 – 1470
            Henry VI (redux) 1470 – 1471
            Edward IV (redux) 1471 – 1483

            Once Trump is reinstated in August.Report

          • JS in reply to Pinky says:

            America is unique yes, but so is pretty much every other country.

            You’re just special pleading here — claiming America is unique in some special way, beyond the fact that every country was formed and went through their own unique ways, and that makes America special.

            But all you can define is…America’s formation was different than other countries. So was the UK’s. So was France’s. So was China’s and Japans.

            So what?

            “”Our creed, our mission statement, is the Declaration of Independence”

            Ask women how that mission statement worked. Or blacks. Or native americans.

            All I’m seeing here is middle-school level history.

            Let’s ignore slavery, and let’s ignore genocide, and let’s ignore the civil war, and let’s play PRETEND that America was some special snowflake, even more special than everyone else, because that’s where we live and we’re 12 and we’re being taught “History for Dummies because we’re 12, and it’s really optimistic rose-colored history about the US because it’s OUR country and WE’RE teaching it”Report

            • Pinky in reply to JS says:

              I didn’t say everything we’ve done is wonderful. I never made that point. If you’re reading my comment and found it, you’re misreading it. I could have meant that the Declaration of Independence was wonderful, or vile, or unrealistic, or anything else. I pointed out that it’s a mission statement. If you consider the US uniquely bad toward women or blacks or native Americans, then you consider it unique. If you don’t consider it uniquely bad to those groups, then why mention them? It seems like you’re throwing rocks in the direction you think I’m coming form, just for the sake of throwing rocks, rather than trying to resolve the question.

              I said the Declaration was a mission statement. What country had something similar – that is to say, a philosophical proposal rather than an ancestry as its claim to unity? I guess you could say that Japan was different because it was settled in Japan, but you’d be pointing to a difference that doesn’t affect its status. Any people who were in Japan would have formed Japan. The US was a collection of people, even French people, who claimed an identity.

              America’s formative principles stand. No one moves to London in order to have English ancestry; no more than one person on Earth thinks that Korean eyes make one Korean. A citizen of the US is American. Again I ask, how many countries retain their foundational identity? What countries have the continuity of governing principles like the US?Report

              • Ken S in reply to Pinky says:

                The Declaration does declare some truths to be self-evident. However, it doesn’t declare us to be a single people — it repeatedly and invariably refers to “states” in the plural. And the bulk of it is a list of grievances. So, yeah, we have lived up to our mission statement — we still complain a lot.Report

              • Pinky in reply to Ken S says:

                When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.Report

              • Ken S in reply to Pinky says:

                … these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.
                Anyway, what this country really needs is a 7-cent nickel. We’ve been using the 5-cent nickel since 1492, and that’s nearly 100 years, daylight savings.Report

              • Pinky in reply to Ken S says:

                I replied to your specific statement about a single people.Report

              • Ken S in reply to Pinky says:

                And I to yours.Report

  4. Chris says:

    Noam Chomsky, famous defender of tanks rolling into Budapest, and other such acts of aggression by super powers.Report