Chris--agreed. And am in general agreement regarding the post at large, as I am grudginlgy pro-choice but do see more room for restrictions and regulations etc.
matako--first off, I'm not a republican though I do believe in the Republic, and not all Conservatives are anti-any-of-those-things you describe though certainly some are, perhaps even most. And I agree too that the GOP is a bunch of morons in large part, but that is not the same thing WHATSOEVER as the culture war which goes much deeper than politics.
Just remember, nothing is so changeable as the human heart, save perhaps the human mob. Tidal might be the word I'd use to describe it.
But matako, you yourself use the term "eventually" regarding prop 8; and don't be sure of anything regarding Roe v Wade--that can change with the simple appointment of another conservative to the SCOTUS. Not under Obama, no, but who next? Just don't count on anything and you'll live a happier life.
Maybe, but the GOP and the culture wars are two entirely different things. And if you haven't noticed, politics, culture--it all moves in circles. What happened two years after Clinton got elected? Or 12 years after Reagan? Who won in 2000? In 2008? Nothing is over. I haven't heard one damn fat lady singing...
Culture wars never end. They are usually not termed "wars" and shouldn't be, but they never end. At what point in time has "culture" itself been static? matako, your arrogance will be your undoing. It comes across not so much as confidence but as the lack thereof.
I say this as someone largely sympathetic to the causes you argue for. I don't think these sort of brash statements further the conversation, and Dave is exactly right, this ain't over yet. Nor will it ever be.
Chris, I don't mean to thread-jack. I'll have a better response up as a post.
Good point. As someone else remarked to me on the subject, I used dogma as a sort of colloquialism which spoke to a broader audience, whereas Larison responded with a lecture in theology. So this begs the question, at what point are generalizations actually necessary to communicate without bogging down one's argument with too much specificity? I argue above for more specificity to avoid generalizations, but at the same time, such simplification can be essential in communication to avoid the pitfall of simply too much information, or too much depth, that it becomes lost on those who you may need to communicate with. Striking rhetorical balance can be a trick, no doubt about it...
Well I do think that there are fundamentalists within the Catholic or Orthodox Church as well who adhere much too strictly to the dogma and act in a more fundamentalist manner.
This is why we have such different visions for the Catholic Church between John Paul and Benedict, two men with obvious differences in their approach to dogma. But thanks, and I'd like to hear more of your thoughts on the matter...
My best advice is first to never use forward/backward buttons in your browser when editing; second always check your series after you update (and before you update) your post; and third never put a number in the box unless you have to--as in somehow it got lost and then four new posts have been published and you need to put it back where it was.
Well, first off - fascinating piece, and I will have a longer response up at a later time, but I think you're very much on to something here with this question of Self and Value and our inability to draw meaningful connections between the two.
However, you have placed this in the Goodbye to Culture11 series and this is another relationship which I can draw no sensible parallel between... ;-)
Oh I understand that, Cascadian. What I mean here is that not all fundamentalists are necessarily the shallow, vapid types I paint them as in that piece. I only mean to say that when I began to draw "sides" I started boxing in ideas, etc. and that this is not necessarily helpful in the larger scheme of things...
So, the example of essentially theocratic arguments doesn’t refute what I said at all - it is instead a good example of choosing the intellectually lazy approach to ideology over the healthy, but intellectually challenging approach.
Right on the money. Is this, in a sense, a question of simply taking the high road in all debates, arguments etc.? When faced with pure partisanship, or thoughtless ideology, one must simply take the Zen approach? Find the way to maneuver the conflict by doing the least harm, and making the most strides forward?
Jack, the one thing you don't have to worry about is that particular act of God taking much longer. Then perhaps they'll pick another reformer, or at least another decent man like John Paul II.
You know what, he didn't smoke. He complained about not smoking, and warned us that he might be off his kilter a little because of it, but he did great. Not a cigarette in sight.
Yes, circumstantial or perhaps geographical segregation does exist at very high levels but this is not based on purposeful segregation so much as it is on the nature of racial groups to live in segregated neighborhoods in a semi-organic fashion. This would not be the case with nerds or gays, at least I don't think.
Also, I think both the notion of kicking kids out of school and creating schools specially for them is just a little absurd in that a lot of teenagers are very confused about their sexuality. There's a lot of questions, doubt, experimentation etc. that goes on for young people. A lot of them probably won't come to grips fully with that part of their maturing selves until after high school. People should not be so quick to either judge them or encourage them to fully understand their own complicated sexual beings at that young, hormonal age...
I think you're absolutely on to something with that Scott, but I wonder where one can draw a clear distinction. Sports perform a social function. Arguably so do other forms of entertainment. So it's tricky. And politically I think it's very muddy waters to go at the jugular of the private schools, whether or not they deserve it...
I think there is a difference between employment and school, though, just as there are different rules for private clubs vs. places of employment. I'm not placing a value on that, per say, but there are reasons for this.
And I do support wrongful dismissal laws for employment purposes.
I guess on a practical front, I'd say if my son or daughter were gay, and there was a private school hostile to gays I would certainly not send them there and they wouldn't benefit from my patronage. However if there was a public school whose administration was hostile to gays I would take legal recourse.
I'm just not sure it's an easy question at all, though, and you're probably right to be "agnostic" on this one. I wonder if there are legal grounds for "wrongful dismissal" if a private school expelled a child for just thinking they were gay. Sort of like wrongful dismissal in the work place?
I disagree, Scott. There has to be a boundary between the State and private schools, private organizations, my home, and so forth. Allowing the State to determine these things outside the public sphere goes against the very grain of the freedoms from the State, that this country stands for.
I would be very grateful for your thoughts on this piece, though, which touches on some of the notions of freedom of speech and so forth, especially since I mention Canada and their hate-speech laws a bit...
Well certainly I think special tax breaks should come with special strings attached. If a private school wants to be unbound from these strings, they need only refuse any public assistance. One argument for school vouchers would be any private school who accepted them would be forced to do away with these discriminatory practices. Ironically, that is also an argument against school vouchers for many on the Right...
On “D. Linker on Culture War-Abortion”
How dare you consider nuance in this debate, Mark. For shame!
On “Capitulation and Retreat”
Ah well, the horse can take it.... ;)
On “D. Linker on Culture War-Abortion”
de nada
"
Cascadian.... < blockquote > you savvy? followed by < /blockquote > minus the spaces...
You can use em or i for italics...not sure about all of it. Feel free to expirement...
"
Chris--agreed. And am in general agreement regarding the post at large, as I am grudginlgy pro-choice but do see more room for restrictions and regulations etc.
matako--first off, I'm not a republican though I do believe in the Republic, and not all Conservatives are anti-any-of-those-things you describe though certainly some are, perhaps even most. And I agree too that the GOP is a bunch of morons in large part, but that is not the same thing WHATSOEVER as the culture war which goes much deeper than politics.
Just remember, nothing is so changeable as the human heart, save perhaps the human mob. Tidal might be the word I'd use to describe it.
"
But matako, you yourself use the term "eventually" regarding prop 8; and don't be sure of anything regarding Roe v Wade--that can change with the simple appointment of another conservative to the SCOTUS. Not under Obama, no, but who next? Just don't count on anything and you'll live a happier life.
"
Maybe, but the GOP and the culture wars are two entirely different things. And if you haven't noticed, politics, culture--it all moves in circles. What happened two years after Clinton got elected? Or 12 years after Reagan? Who won in 2000? In 2008? Nothing is over. I haven't heard one damn fat lady singing...
"
Culture wars never end. They are usually not termed "wars" and shouldn't be, but they never end. At what point in time has "culture" itself been static? matako, your arrogance will be your undoing. It comes across not so much as confidence but as the lack thereof.
I say this as someone largely sympathetic to the causes you argue for. I don't think these sort of brash statements further the conversation, and Dave is exactly right, this ain't over yet. Nor will it ever be.
Chris, I don't mean to thread-jack. I'll have a better response up as a post.
On “Authority, Empathy, and Power”
Good point. As someone else remarked to me on the subject, I used dogma as a sort of colloquialism which spoke to a broader audience, whereas Larison responded with a lecture in theology. So this begs the question, at what point are generalizations actually necessary to communicate without bogging down one's argument with too much specificity? I argue above for more specificity to avoid generalizations, but at the same time, such simplification can be essential in communication to avoid the pitfall of simply too much information, or too much depth, that it becomes lost on those who you may need to communicate with. Striking rhetorical balance can be a trick, no doubt about it...
On “Of Maus and Men”
See now you've got me wondering what the hell you're talking about...on my way to HoD...
On “Authority, Empathy, and Power”
Well I do think that there are fundamentalists within the Catholic or Orthodox Church as well who adhere much too strictly to the dogma and act in a more fundamentalist manner.
This is why we have such different visions for the Catholic Church between John Paul and Benedict, two men with obvious differences in their approach to dogma. But thanks, and I'd like to hear more of your thoughts on the matter...
On “Stand Up Sociology”
My best advice is first to never use forward/backward buttons in your browser when editing; second always check your series after you update (and before you update) your post; and third never put a number in the box unless you have to--as in somehow it got lost and then four new posts have been published and you need to put it back where it was.
"
Well, first off - fascinating piece, and I will have a longer response up at a later time, but I think you're very much on to something here with this question of Self and Value and our inability to draw meaningful connections between the two.
However, you have placed this in the Goodbye to Culture11 series and this is another relationship which I can draw no sensible parallel between... ;-)
On “Painting in broad strikes”
Oh I understand that, Cascadian. What I mean here is that not all fundamentalists are necessarily the shallow, vapid types I paint them as in that piece. I only mean to say that when I began to draw "sides" I started boxing in ideas, etc. and that this is not necessarily helpful in the larger scheme of things...
On “goodbye to Culture11”
Well put, Freddie. Adieu, Culture11. Adieu. Thank you for giving me my first "real" publication and providing so very much for me to consider...
On “Talking About the Same Thing When the Other Side Won’t”
Well said, Mark.
Right on the money. Is this, in a sense, a question of simply taking the high road in all debates, arguments etc.? When faced with pure partisanship, or thoughtless ideology, one must simply take the Zen approach? Find the way to maneuver the conflict by doing the least harm, and making the most strides forward?
So much to consider...
On “Of Maus and Men”
Jack, the one thing you don't have to worry about is that particular act of God taking much longer. Then perhaps they'll pick another reformer, or at least another decent man like John Paul II.
Thanks for stopping by!
"
You know what, he didn't smoke. He complained about not smoking, and warned us that he might be off his kilter a little because of it, but he did great. Not a cigarette in sight.
On “Schools, segregation, and gay rights”
Yes, circumstantial or perhaps geographical segregation does exist at very high levels but this is not based on purposeful segregation so much as it is on the nature of racial groups to live in segregated neighborhoods in a semi-organic fashion. This would not be the case with nerds or gays, at least I don't think.
Also, I think both the notion of kicking kids out of school and creating schools specially for them is just a little absurd in that a lot of teenagers are very confused about their sexuality. There's a lot of questions, doubt, experimentation etc. that goes on for young people. A lot of them probably won't come to grips fully with that part of their maturing selves until after high school. People should not be so quick to either judge them or encourage them to fully understand their own complicated sexual beings at that young, hormonal age...
"
I think you're absolutely on to something with that Scott, but I wonder where one can draw a clear distinction. Sports perform a social function. Arguably so do other forms of entertainment. So it's tricky. And politically I think it's very muddy waters to go at the jugular of the private schools, whether or not they deserve it...
"
I think there is a difference between employment and school, though, just as there are different rules for private clubs vs. places of employment. I'm not placing a value on that, per say, but there are reasons for this.
And I do support wrongful dismissal laws for employment purposes.
"
I guess on a practical front, I'd say if my son or daughter were gay, and there was a private school hostile to gays I would certainly not send them there and they wouldn't benefit from my patronage. However if there was a public school whose administration was hostile to gays I would take legal recourse.
I'm just not sure it's an easy question at all, though, and you're probably right to be "agnostic" on this one. I wonder if there are legal grounds for "wrongful dismissal" if a private school expelled a child for just thinking they were gay. Sort of like wrongful dismissal in the work place?
"
I disagree, Scott. There has to be a boundary between the State and private schools, private organizations, my home, and so forth. Allowing the State to determine these things outside the public sphere goes against the very grain of the freedoms from the State, that this country stands for.
I would be very grateful for your thoughts on this piece, though, which touches on some of the notions of freedom of speech and so forth, especially since I mention Canada and their hate-speech laws a bit...
"
Well certainly I think special tax breaks should come with special strings attached. If a private school wants to be unbound from these strings, they need only refuse any public assistance. One argument for school vouchers would be any private school who accepted them would be forced to do away with these discriminatory practices. Ironically, that is also an argument against school vouchers for many on the Right...
"
Do all private schools? Well then I'd say there are grounds to sue, and sue they should.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.