I think Allen's reputation is helped by the fact that the authorities investigated him pretty much contemporaneously with the allegation in question. I suppose more stuff could always come out.
Let's not be obtuse though. In a zero-sum, Malthusian world, yes, I suppose in a certain very general and aggregate sense setting policy so more parents can read to their kids if they so chose could maybe be a disadvantage to the kids whose parents can and do already read to them. What it isnt doing is telling people who can and do read to their kids that they should stop. We should want people to read to their kids full stop end of story.
There's a certain parallel here with police shootings where some people seem to argue that the only problem is the disproportionate racial impact rather than the policies and social problems that produce those numbers. Like if only we could get a few more upper middle class white parents to not read to their kids or the cops to gun down a few more white guys a year we'd be doing fine.
It's because the people making the arguments have lost perspective to the point that even when what they say has some merit it can only he expressed in a manner as alienating as possible and which implies solutions no reasonable person could accept.
I think the big hiccup here is the framing. If the argument is we need to make policy adjustments so that moms in bad socio-economic circumstances can read to their kids instead of work the graveyard shift at a 7-11 there's something we can work with. Hell I'd be agreeing with it. The problem is the framing makes it sound like fairness requires intentionally disadvantaging your own children. It's not only bad policy, its counter to human nature.
Now I understand there's a certain demographic that finds catharsis in this type of psychological self-flaggelation (indeed its the topic of this thread) but to everyone else it seems crazy and even offensive.
@maribou I do see the difference and I'll work to take it into account moving forward. At the very least I can't take a position against jargon or sterotypes in one instance then lazily resort to them myself. Regarding moderation of comments no need to keep the subject off limits with me. I just wanted to confirm I understood.
I value the community here and would hate to contribute to any problems. I get that its a fragile thing, and appreciate that work done by you and the rest of the staff.
That's actually the most helpful explanation I've ever recieved on the subject. There are some big premises in there I reject, or at least would consider to be begging the question (in the logical fallacy sense). That probably goes a pretty long way at explaining my annoyances at many of the positions adopted by adherents of the philosophy in question. Your comment taught me something about the world and myself, and for that I thank you.
@maribou I mean, if we are deciding those terms are off limits on OT I'd have to abide by it or be banned I guess. My intent hasnt ever been to chase anyone off. I did not see any of my comments as pushing the envelope but if there's a rule I need to follow to stay in good graces here I'm happy to comply or vanish if I find it unfair.
If you're saying that in principle words should have clear meanings I'm with you. If you're saying we should fight for social justice to have a clear meaning I'm not sure that a concept so fleeting and malleable ever can. That fundamental emptiness is why the warriors always speak in euphemisms and inscrutable jargon. Maybe these things have meaning in academia but in popular debate its magical words used as tribal identifiers or rallying cries.
I've got a basic understanding of the historical, religiously based movements, though I suspect youre far better read than me. That said I was raised Catholic and am still strangely involved in the Church in some ways despite personal agnosticism, also did a lot of Latin American history in undergrad where it was a major topic at times. What I'm talking about here isn't the same thing.
Stillwater's description below is much closer to the mark and pretty in line with how I see the movement. It isn't about helping people through personal actions and public policy. Its about establishing a new cultural morality police and using the political system to do it if possible. Maybe we need to come up with a better name for the movement, I'm just going by popular lexicon for internet debates.
Fwiw I can also tell you aren't who I'm talking about based on how you discuss the subject.
This response doesnt make sense to me. Nowhere did I say anyone should stop talking about anything or advocating for themselves. I said I don't think every idea or argument (or piece of art or other issue of any kind for that matter) should be viewed/assessed solely through the lense of identity politics. The movement thats defined itself by that approach to life is at best intellectually vapid and and at worst no less illberal than the old Christian right. If someone thinks I'm wrong and wants to talk about that on the merits I'm always happy to discuss. Conversely, if all we're doing is appeals to sex organs, skin color, or nebulous academic newspeak I find it to be a waste of time.
Maybe it's an issue of definitions. As I said above, I think 'social justice' is a pretty nebulous term, and it can mean different things to different people. I cited the example I did because what I'm talking about is a politics that puts identity above all else. That's what I hear when I hear or read 'social justice.' Maybe its not fair to use the 'sjw' internet lingo, and I have encountered people who say their politics are oriented in 'social justice' whose views overlap with mine in many respects. That said I don't think its how the the term is generally being used or understood. We've both said we are speaking from anecdotes/individual perspective, not hard evidence.
I can't tell you about the people you work with or organize with. All I can say is the face of what we're talking about are people who believe race or sex or who they are attracted to is the most important aspect of life, and all thoughts and ideas ought to be weighed and filtered based on the traits of who uttered them, not the merits. Contrary to your characterization, these are not people who advocate civil liberties. In fact they protest when the ACLU comes to teach people how they can more effectively exercise their rights. It's the opposite of what liberalism is supposed to be about.
I very much appreciate your perspective on this but I really don't have common ground with anyone putting identity before policy and civil liberties. In fact I want that perspective to lose and be marginalized before they harm efforts to improve society by allying themselves with other illiberal groups (see carceral feminism) or cause the rest of the polity to dismiss liberalism as the realm of spoiled rich kids who joined a cult in college.
I actually look at this differently. I think old fashion liberalism won on gay marriage through slow persuasion, elections, and the courts (I was happy to vote for it in a referendum). Obama passing (or failing) some litmus test didn't matter and burning him at the stake would have been counter productive. This is what I hear SJWs asking for- treating anyone who doesnt co-sign on the the most radical aspects of the race/gender studies view of the world or whatever the craziest BLM affiliate has said as evil.
Saying any particular identity group should have veto power over the party platform is silly and its likely to alienate a plurality of voters in a big diverse country. I'm not sure I agree with your facts on public opinion around Obama but I guess we'll find out. Maybe hunting heretics will work out for you. The right managed to kill all the RINOs, though I'm not sure we're better off for it.
@maribou All I have is anecdata but as best as I can tell the SJW crowd was 'with her' and the critics on the left were racist, sexist Bernie bros. Of course this could lead us into a discussion of what 'social justice' really is- and its a pretty nebulous term when you get down to it. Who I mean when I say 'SJW' would be the illiberal intersectionality uber alles left. And yes, I think the energy and where our political fault lines lie favor them to win over the Democratic party then promptly eat their own in an orgy of witch burning like the ditto-heads have the GOP.
@pillsy There's always been an arbitrariness about where the law sets those limits and social attitudes about it vary widely with the times. I'd think most people agree that the situation referenced in Cr4 is never going to be acceptable but time was that people weren't as horrified by a 15 or 16 year old getting what she came for from an adult rock star. That isnt to say it was exactly approved of but I'm not sure they were looked at as victims in quite the way they might be now. Attitudes about that have changed but I think we should be hesitant to project current norms onto things that happened 40 or more years ago. I mean... my grandmother was 17 and my grandmother was 32 when they had my mom. She'd laugh at anyone who said she was taken advantage of.
I actually think what @stillwater is saying is quite founded. The weirdos on the SJW left don't dominate the Democratic party now but the reactionary-populist right didn't always control the GOP either. It happened over a long period of time where a certain energized strain was allowed to grow in influence until it took over the grass roots. It's quite possible Obama will be remembered as the last of the Clintonite third way Democrats.
My hope is that the party will turn more towards a Sanders style push to renegotiate the social contract but theres no reason to think that the energy coming from the SJW corner won't prevail. The tribal nature and urban vs. rural aspects of our political moment favor a coastal coalition of college educated whites (particularly women) and minorities, where the SJW side side is strongest. Essentially the coalition Hilary thought would win her the election.
I dunno Burt. I agree that it doesn't have to be misinformation but there are plenty of prominent voices out there calling for various limitations on speech, including establishing laws other Western countries have adopted that wouldn't pass 1st Amendment scrutiny here. Now I do think there's more ignorance out in the general public than ideology but I don't think that's quite whats going on at colleges.
It makes sense if you look at everything through the lense of victim culture where individual agency is less important than amorphous societal power dynamics.
All fair enough (and don't worry given your posting history here I do not doubt your fandom, especially since I think I've deduced youre a fellow O's fan).
To me if they're going to do stuff like add a pitch clock or change rules around pitching changes they should first get rid of more recent crap like challenges and shrinking the strike zone. See if that helps before we do something that really screws with the flow of the game.
All interesting points but I don't really see what they had to do with my comment. I don't hear the push coming from regular fans of the game during the season, but it does consistently around playoff time when suddenly the national media tunes in and people who don't watch much baseball all summer suddenly are.
Medieval Europe was not preoccupied by race, nor was it an era of racial purity
One of the more pernicious, ahistorical, and stupid aspects of our cultural moment is the tendency to view everything through the lense of racial politics in modern America.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Morning Ed: Harvey’s Shadow {2017.10.25.W}”
I have no dog in the fight and Woody Allen seems like a weird guy. Still, the police investigated him and there wasn't enough evidence to charge him.
"
I think Allen's reputation is helped by the fact that the authorities investigated him pretty much contemporaneously with the allegation in question. I suppose more stuff could always come out.
On “Linky Friday: Blood & Money”
Let's not be obtuse though. In a zero-sum, Malthusian world, yes, I suppose in a certain very general and aggregate sense setting policy so more parents can read to their kids if they so chose could maybe be a disadvantage to the kids whose parents can and do already read to them. What it isnt doing is telling people who can and do read to their kids that they should stop. We should want people to read to their kids full stop end of story.
There's a certain parallel here with police shootings where some people seem to argue that the only problem is the disproportionate racial impact rather than the policies and social problems that produce those numbers. Like if only we could get a few more upper middle class white parents to not read to their kids or the cops to gun down a few more white guys a year we'd be doing fine.
"
It's because the people making the arguments have lost perspective to the point that even when what they say has some merit it can only he expressed in a manner as alienating as possible and which implies solutions no reasonable person could accept.
"
I think the big hiccup here is the framing. If the argument is we need to make policy adjustments so that moms in bad socio-economic circumstances can read to their kids instead of work the graveyard shift at a 7-11 there's something we can work with. Hell I'd be agreeing with it. The problem is the framing makes it sound like fairness requires intentionally disadvantaging your own children. It's not only bad policy, its counter to human nature.
Now I understand there's a certain demographic that finds catharsis in this type of psychological self-flaggelation (indeed its the topic of this thread) but to everyone else it seems crazy and even offensive.
"
@maribou I do see the difference and I'll work to take it into account moving forward. At the very least I can't take a position against jargon or sterotypes in one instance then lazily resort to them myself. Regarding moderation of comments no need to keep the subject off limits with me. I just wanted to confirm I understood.
I value the community here and would hate to contribute to any problems. I get that its a fragile thing, and appreciate that work done by you and the rest of the staff.
"
That's actually the most helpful explanation I've ever recieved on the subject. There are some big premises in there I reject, or at least would consider to be begging the question (in the logical fallacy sense). That probably goes a pretty long way at explaining my annoyances at many of the positions adopted by adherents of the philosophy in question. Your comment taught me something about the world and myself, and for that I thank you.
"
@maribou I mean, if we are deciding those terms are off limits on OT I'd have to abide by it or be banned I guess. My intent hasnt ever been to chase anyone off. I did not see any of my comments as pushing the envelope but if there's a rule I need to follow to stay in good graces here I'm happy to comply or vanish if I find it unfair.
"
If you're saying that in principle words should have clear meanings I'm with you. If you're saying we should fight for social justice to have a clear meaning I'm not sure that a concept so fleeting and malleable ever can. That fundamental emptiness is why the warriors always speak in euphemisms and inscrutable jargon. Maybe these things have meaning in academia but in popular debate its magical words used as tribal identifiers or rallying cries.
"
This is a very fair point. I'm not sure it's feasible though now that its entered the mass cultural vocabulary the way it has.
"
I've got a basic understanding of the historical, religiously based movements, though I suspect youre far better read than me. That said I was raised Catholic and am still strangely involved in the Church in some ways despite personal agnosticism, also did a lot of Latin American history in undergrad where it was a major topic at times. What I'm talking about here isn't the same thing.
Stillwater's description below is much closer to the mark and pretty in line with how I see the movement. It isn't about helping people through personal actions and public policy. Its about establishing a new cultural morality police and using the political system to do it if possible. Maybe we need to come up with a better name for the movement, I'm just going by popular lexicon for internet debates.
Fwiw I can also tell you aren't who I'm talking about based on how you discuss the subject.
"
This response doesnt make sense to me. Nowhere did I say anyone should stop talking about anything or advocating for themselves. I said I don't think every idea or argument (or piece of art or other issue of any kind for that matter) should be viewed/assessed solely through the lense of identity politics. The movement thats defined itself by that approach to life is at best intellectually vapid and and at worst no less illberal than the old Christian right. If someone thinks I'm wrong and wants to talk about that on the merits I'm always happy to discuss. Conversely, if all we're doing is appeals to sex organs, skin color, or nebulous academic newspeak I find it to be a waste of time.
"
Maybe it's an issue of definitions. As I said above, I think 'social justice' is a pretty nebulous term, and it can mean different things to different people. I cited the example I did because what I'm talking about is a politics that puts identity above all else. That's what I hear when I hear or read 'social justice.' Maybe its not fair to use the 'sjw' internet lingo, and I have encountered people who say their politics are oriented in 'social justice' whose views overlap with mine in many respects. That said I don't think its how the the term is generally being used or understood. We've both said we are speaking from anecdotes/individual perspective, not hard evidence.
"
@maribou
I can't tell you about the people you work with or organize with. All I can say is the face of what we're talking about are people who believe race or sex or who they are attracted to is the most important aspect of life, and all thoughts and ideas ought to be weighed and filtered based on the traits of who uttered them, not the merits. Contrary to your characterization, these are not people who advocate civil liberties. In fact they protest when the ACLU comes to teach people how they can more effectively exercise their rights. It's the opposite of what liberalism is supposed to be about.
I very much appreciate your perspective on this but I really don't have common ground with anyone putting identity before policy and civil liberties. In fact I want that perspective to lose and be marginalized before they harm efforts to improve society by allying themselves with other illiberal groups (see carceral feminism) or cause the rest of the polity to dismiss liberalism as the realm of spoiled rich kids who joined a cult in college.
"
I actually look at this differently. I think old fashion liberalism won on gay marriage through slow persuasion, elections, and the courts (I was happy to vote for it in a referendum). Obama passing (or failing) some litmus test didn't matter and burning him at the stake would have been counter productive. This is what I hear SJWs asking for- treating anyone who doesnt co-sign on the the most radical aspects of the race/gender studies view of the world or whatever the craziest BLM affiliate has said as evil.
"
Saying any particular identity group should have veto power over the party platform is silly and its likely to alienate a plurality of voters in a big diverse country. I'm not sure I agree with your facts on public opinion around Obama but I guess we'll find out. Maybe hunting heretics will work out for you. The right managed to kill all the RINOs, though I'm not sure we're better off for it.
"
Did Obama have to do those things to win in the Midwest?
"
@maribou All I have is anecdata but as best as I can tell the SJW crowd was 'with her' and the critics on the left were racist, sexist Bernie bros. Of course this could lead us into a discussion of what 'social justice' really is- and its a pretty nebulous term when you get down to it. Who I mean when I say 'SJW' would be the illiberal intersectionality uber alles left. And yes, I think the energy and where our political fault lines lie favor them to win over the Democratic party then promptly eat their own in an orgy of witch burning like the ditto-heads have the GOP.
"
@pillsy There's always been an arbitrariness about where the law sets those limits and social attitudes about it vary widely with the times. I'd think most people agree that the situation referenced in Cr4 is never going to be acceptable but time was that people weren't as horrified by a 15 or 16 year old getting what she came for from an adult rock star. That isnt to say it was exactly approved of but I'm not sure they were looked at as victims in quite the way they might be now. Attitudes about that have changed but I think we should be hesitant to project current norms onto things that happened 40 or more years ago. I mean... my grandmother was 17 and my grandmother was 32 when they had my mom. She'd laugh at anyone who said she was taken advantage of.
"
I actually think what @stillwater is saying is quite founded. The weirdos on the SJW left don't dominate the Democratic party now but the reactionary-populist right didn't always control the GOP either. It happened over a long period of time where a certain energized strain was allowed to grow in influence until it took over the grass roots. It's quite possible Obama will be remembered as the last of the Clintonite third way Democrats.
My hope is that the party will turn more towards a Sanders style push to renegotiate the social contract but theres no reason to think that the energy coming from the SJW corner won't prevail. The tribal nature and urban vs. rural aspects of our political moment favor a coastal coalition of college educated whites (particularly women) and minorities, where the SJW side side is strongest. Essentially the coalition Hilary thought would win her the election.
On “Plausible Misconceptions”
I dunno Burt. I agree that it doesn't have to be misinformation but there are plenty of prominent voices out there calling for various limitations on speech, including establishing laws other Western countries have adopted that wouldn't pass 1st Amendment scrutiny here. Now I do think there's more ignorance out in the general public than ideology but I don't think that's quite whats going on at colleges.
On “Linky Friday: Blood & Money”
It makes sense if you look at everything through the lense of victim culture where individual agency is less important than amorphous societal power dynamics.
On “The 9:30 Project”
All fair enough (and don't worry given your posting history here I do not doubt your fandom, especially since I think I've deduced youre a fellow O's fan).
To me if they're going to do stuff like add a pitch clock or change rules around pitching changes they should first get rid of more recent crap like challenges and shrinking the strike zone. See if that helps before we do something that really screws with the flow of the game.
"
All interesting points but I don't really see what they had to do with my comment. I don't hear the push coming from regular fans of the game during the season, but it does consistently around playoff time when suddenly the national media tunes in and people who don't watch much baseball all summer suddenly are.
On “Morning Ed: Education {2017.10.18.W}”
One of the more pernicious, ahistorical, and stupid aspects of our cultural moment is the tendency to view everything through the lense of racial politics in modern America.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.