If you want to take the opportunity presented by the recent attacks to talk about those things, preferably with someone who actually holds the position you're attacking, be my guest. Division of moral labor, and all that. I have zero interest in talking about talking rather than talking, period, but that's just me. I don't make any claim to pronounce on the proper topics of public discourse.
Adam Smith taught us long ago that the division of labor was a mighty force for economic progress. It would be perverse to criticize a person whose job is to sharpen the points of pins by saying that planting wheat is more important. Indeed, it is, but not everybody has to do everything all the time. We're better off dividing our labor.
I think the same insight applies to moral progress. The division of labor contributes there as well. Just this morning, I read an account of the Justice Department's strange decision to prosecute the Monsey stabber under 18 USC 247 rather than 18 USC 249. It did not include any condemnation of the stabber, or of anti-semitism in general. (The author, for what it is worth, is Jewish.) I do think it safe to assume, however, that he condemns both. But is that the best use of his time and talent, or are we better off if he does what he is good at and explains an issue most of the rest of us would not otherwise understand? The answer seems obvious to me.
Somebody out there is likely already to be putting a great deal of work into figuring out whether the Monsey stabber, who is clearly otherwise guilty of attempted murder and some federal hate crime, is crazy enough to have an insanity defense. I'd be surprised if that person's contribution to our understanding of the matter will include, or would be improved by including, denunciation of the obvious badness of what the Monsey stabber did, whatever his mental state.
Likewise, if some people take the opportunity afforded by these recent incidents to discuss the many flavors of anti-semitism, the differences between them, and, perhaps, the different strategies for dealing with them, which really is, unlike the Monsey stabbing itself, "complicated," I don't insist that they insert a paragraph condemning what no one supports. But then again, I don't see myself as the schoolmarm setting the bounds of public discussion.
There aren't any "citations and whatnot" that answer the question "What do you mean?" If you don't want to say what you mean in your own voice and stand, or stagger, behind it, there's no point in playing whatever your game is.
What is the "it" you keep referring to as "complicated"? And whatever "it" you mean, do you agree or disagree that that "it" is "complicated"? Or would you rather just posture without saying something definite enough to be held against you in the future?
Do you have a point? Of course people are talking about recent anti-Semitic attacks, and nobody needs social media to know that. The first thing you cite the is the New York Daily News, a newspaper, my hometown paper, which I read in hard copy every day. Is anyone worth takinga seriously saying that this latest attack is "complicated," or that it sheds much light on the actually complicated issue of the many different kinds of anti-semitism? No doubt some folks will jump on it in bad faith to try to, say, blame Trump, or liberals who don't like Likud, or who won't say anything bad about anyone black, or dismiss anyone who would rather talk about "complications" than the attack itself, but they don't deserve to be taken seriously
As it currently stands, the situation isn't particularly complicated. Some mentally-ill guy who was off his meds harbored crazy anti-semitic beliefs and acted on them. Was he anti-semitic because he's nuts or was he anti-semitic and nuts? I don't know yet, and neither does anyone else. Maybe we'll find out more. Maybe we won't. Maybe he's crazy enough to have an insanity defense to what otherwise looks like a straightforward hate crime prosecution; maybe he isn't. Don't know yet, but we'll probably find out soon.
But if the "situation" is not this crazy killer and why he did what he did, but some larger political point someone wants to make about anti-semitism, this tragedy looks -- so far -- like a poor vehicle for it, and I haven't seen many people worth listening to going there. Of course, I'm a technophobe who doesn't do social media and doesn't follow the Twitterati, so I'm not au courant on the musings of former porn site executives and the like. If anyone serious wants to take more than 280 characters to discuss how (or if) left-wing anti-semitism differs from right-wing anti-semitism, or why certain segments of the black community regard Jewish whites as different in some way from WASP or Irish or Italian or Polish whites, that might be interesting, and it might even be "complicated." Until someone tries that, I won't get exercised about quick, substance-free hits.
Those who want to know how in the hell the attacks were complicated can read Ms. Alptraum to get a representative answer.
They might do that, or they might look at the facts as they develop and decide for themselves. But that's too much like work and thought and patience. Retweeting people who have no claim on our attention is so much easier.
I had to look up Alptraum and Fleshbot to see if this was anything anyone needed to pay attention to. It wasn't, and I could have put those 90 seconds of my life to better use. Still, whatever else one can say about this, if one felt the need to say anything, it isn't all that "complicated." It may not be correct, or particularly interesting, but it is far from "complicated."
Another example of a person in a humble calling, proud of his work, who seems to live at a decent level of material comfort. Was it really like that then?
Several years ago, I was involved in a lawsuit brought by a black professor who, among other things, used to talk often about Aaron Lopez, a Jewish merchant from Providence who was a slave trader. I'm willing to bet that Lopez is the only slave trader 99.98% of people can name, largely because this character spoke so much about him. My second-seat was a WASP whose remote ancestor (a signer of the Declaration of Independence) was, in fact, a slave trader. She always worried that this would come out during the trial. Luckily, it didn't.
If we waited for someone with something intelligent to say, the internet would be a very quiet place. And this topic, in particular, invites people with nothing intelligent to say to say it at length.
Everything we now know or think we know about Epstein's death we learned the usual way, through mainstream media reporting of an ongoing investigation, which wrapped up about as quickly as one could reasonably expect. And the conclusion was the boring one that was always the most likely one. It took a little while, though not all that long, because work takes work. Unlike the arched eyebrow, knowing wink, and off-the-shelf cynicism, which any clown on the internet can gin up whenever it fits some pre-existing agenda. It's a lot easier than finding out stuff.
Or, the government can rent out its space to private groups, religious or secular, on neutral terms. This can get tricky. The government could rent out space for a secular family counseling group, but might have to be willing to rent it to a religious family counseling group. Or it could ban certain uses, regardless of whether the sponsoring group is religious or secular. So if I can't use the space to promote a secular mud-wrestling exhibition, a religious group that uses athletic events as a recruiting device can't use the space for Mud-Wrestling for Christ (TM) either.
It occurs to me that I left an unintended ambiguity. He was "admitted" to the bar in 2008 and may have been "admitted" to law school during the drought.
Cook was admitted in 2008, so he may well have been admitted during the "drought." On the other hand, even in more demanding admissions climates, there was no screening for this sort of thing. It didn't show up in, and wasn't strongly correlated with, LSATs and GPAs.
I've managed to avoid Nicki Minaj without actually trying. Couldn't name a song of hers or recognize a performance of hers with my eyes closed. Not proud of that, or ashamed, just a fact.
Get off of my lawn.
If that's what you mean, then we don't disagree. I thought you meant that Lincoln advocated some actual move against slavery in the states where it existed.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Attacks on Jews in New York. Again.”
If you want to take the opportunity presented by the recent attacks to talk about those things, preferably with someone who actually holds the position you're attacking, be my guest. Division of moral labor, and all that. I have zero interest in talking about talking rather than talking, period, but that's just me. I don't make any claim to pronounce on the proper topics of public discourse.
On “Trump’s Benghazi”
The real reason this isn't another Benghazi is that Trump is President.
On “Attacks on Jews in New York. Again.”
Adam Smith taught us long ago that the division of labor was a mighty force for economic progress. It would be perverse to criticize a person whose job is to sharpen the points of pins by saying that planting wheat is more important. Indeed, it is, but not everybody has to do everything all the time. We're better off dividing our labor.
I think the same insight applies to moral progress. The division of labor contributes there as well. Just this morning, I read an account of the Justice Department's strange decision to prosecute the Monsey stabber under 18 USC 247 rather than 18 USC 249. It did not include any condemnation of the stabber, or of anti-semitism in general. (The author, for what it is worth, is Jewish.) I do think it safe to assume, however, that he condemns both. But is that the best use of his time and talent, or are we better off if he does what he is good at and explains an issue most of the rest of us would not otherwise understand? The answer seems obvious to me.
Somebody out there is likely already to be putting a great deal of work into figuring out whether the Monsey stabber, who is clearly otherwise guilty of attempted murder and some federal hate crime, is crazy enough to have an insanity defense. I'd be surprised if that person's contribution to our understanding of the matter will include, or would be improved by including, denunciation of the obvious badness of what the Monsey stabber did, whatever his mental state.
Likewise, if some people take the opportunity afforded by these recent incidents to discuss the many flavors of anti-semitism, the differences between them, and, perhaps, the different strategies for dealing with them, which really is, unlike the Monsey stabbing itself, "complicated," I don't insist that they insert a paragraph condemning what no one supports. But then again, I don't see myself as the schoolmarm setting the bounds of public discussion.
"
There aren't any "citations and whatnot" that answer the question "What do you mean?" If you don't want to say what you mean in your own voice and stand, or stagger, behind it, there's no point in playing whatever your game is.
"
What is the "it" you keep referring to as "complicated"? And whatever "it" you mean, do you agree or disagree that that "it" is "complicated"? Or would you rather just posture without saying something definite enough to be held against you in the future?
"
Do you have a point? Of course people are talking about recent anti-Semitic attacks, and nobody needs social media to know that. The first thing you cite the is the New York Daily News, a newspaper, my hometown paper, which I read in hard copy every day. Is anyone worth takinga seriously saying that this latest attack is "complicated," or that it sheds much light on the actually complicated issue of the many different kinds of anti-semitism? No doubt some folks will jump on it in bad faith to try to, say, blame Trump, or liberals who don't like Likud, or who won't say anything bad about anyone black, or dismiss anyone who would rather talk about "complications" than the attack itself, but they don't deserve to be taken seriously
"
As it currently stands, the situation isn't particularly complicated. Some mentally-ill guy who was off his meds harbored crazy anti-semitic beliefs and acted on them. Was he anti-semitic because he's nuts or was he anti-semitic and nuts? I don't know yet, and neither does anyone else. Maybe we'll find out more. Maybe we won't. Maybe he's crazy enough to have an insanity defense to what otherwise looks like a straightforward hate crime prosecution; maybe he isn't. Don't know yet, but we'll probably find out soon.
But if the "situation" is not this crazy killer and why he did what he did, but some larger political point someone wants to make about anti-semitism, this tragedy looks -- so far -- like a poor vehicle for it, and I haven't seen many people worth listening to going there. Of course, I'm a technophobe who doesn't do social media and doesn't follow the Twitterati, so I'm not au courant on the musings of former porn site executives and the like. If anyone serious wants to take more than 280 characters to discuss how (or if) left-wing anti-semitism differs from right-wing anti-semitism, or why certain segments of the black community regard Jewish whites as different in some way from WASP or Irish or Italian or Polish whites, that might be interesting, and it might even be "complicated." Until someone tries that, I won't get exercised about quick, substance-free hits.
"
Those who want to know how in the hell the attacks were complicated can read Ms. Alptraum to get a representative answer.
They might do that, or they might look at the facts as they develop and decide for themselves. But that's too much like work and thought and patience. Retweeting people who have no claim on our attention is so much easier.
"
Maybe she's "representative," but what she says isn't "complicated." Unless you have low standards for complication.
"
I had to look up Alptraum and Fleshbot to see if this was anything anyone needed to pay attention to. It wasn't, and I could have put those 90 seconds of my life to better use. Still, whatever else one can say about this, if one felt the need to say anything, it isn't all that "complicated." It may not be correct, or particularly interesting, but it is far from "complicated."
On “Real Shoe Shiner At Home”
I know Italians were never considered REALLY white in those days, but they were never regarded as people of color.
"
Another example of a person in a humble calling, proud of his work, who seems to live at a decent level of material comfort. Was it really like that then?
On “Attacks on Jews in New York. Again.”
Several years ago, I was involved in a lawsuit brought by a black professor who, among other things, used to talk often about Aaron Lopez, a Jewish merchant from Providence who was a slave trader. I'm willing to bet that Lopez is the only slave trader 99.98% of people can name, largely because this character spoke so much about him. My second-seat was a WASP whose remote ancestor (a signer of the Declaration of Independence) was, in fact, a slave trader. She always worried that this would come out during the trial. Luckily, it didn't.
On “Bret Stephens Unites the Internet”
If we waited for someone with something intelligent to say, the internet would be a very quiet place. And this topic, in particular, invites people with nothing intelligent to say to say it at length.
On “Everyone Seemingly Loves Them Some “Epstein Didn’t Kill Himself””
Everything we now know or think we know about Epstein's death we learned the usual way, through mainstream media reporting of an ongoing investigation, which wrapped up about as quickly as one could reasonably expect. And the conclusion was the boring one that was always the most likely one. It took a little while, though not all that long, because work takes work. Unlike the arched eyebrow, knowing wink, and off-the-shelf cynicism, which any clown on the internet can gin up whenever it fits some pre-existing agenda. It's a lot easier than finding out stuff.
On “Wednesday Writs: War on Christmas Edition”
Or, the government can rent out its space to private groups, religious or secular, on neutral terms. This can get tricky. The government could rent out space for a secular family counseling group, but might have to be willing to rent it to a religious family counseling group. Or it could ban certain uses, regardless of whether the sponsoring group is religious or secular. So if I can't use the space to promote a secular mud-wrestling exhibition, a religious group that uses athletic events as a recruiting device can't use the space for Mud-Wrestling for Christ (TM) either.
"
It occurs to me that I left an unintended ambiguity. He was "admitted" to the bar in 2008 and may have been "admitted" to law school during the drought.
"
Cook was admitted in 2008, so he may well have been admitted during the "drought." On the other hand, even in more demanding admissions climates, there was no screening for this sort of thing. It didn't show up in, and wasn't strongly correlated with, LSATs and GPAs.
On “Vox Media to cut hundreds of freelance jobs ahead of changes in California gig economy laws”
I hear things nobody else hears, too, but that's tinnitis.
On “The Unbearable Whiteness Of Being Empirical”
a lot of black people have skin that is light enough to get sunburned.
Everyone can get sunburned, including my dark-skinned wife, who is far more diligent about applying sunscreen than I am.
On “UK Elections: The Limits of Comparisons”
Team Red moving left on economics would cost its paymasters real cash money. So it won't happen. As for Team Blue, I agree with you.
On “The Unbearable Whiteness Of Being Empirical”
I've managed to avoid Nicki Minaj without actually trying. Couldn't name a song of hers or recognize a performance of hers with my eyes closed. Not proud of that, or ashamed, just a fact.
Get off of my lawn.
"
Nice impulse control there.
On “The Dark Road of Censorship”
What is it you don't understand?
"
If that's what you mean, then we don't disagree. I thought you meant that Lincoln advocated some actual move against slavery in the states where it existed.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.