The Far Right also has a very strong tendency to make the personal political. Look at the Evangelical crusade against anything that doesn't conform to their version of Christianity or the need to create an alternative Evangelical version of popular culture, Christian Pop, rather than enjoy regular pop music and go to church every Sunday. More support for my belief that the Far Left and Far Right have a lot more in common than they would like to admit. Like greginak, I think its absurd to make sure that all my cultural preferences mirror my political beliefs. Its too limiting and possibly dangerous. It dehumanizes people who disagree with you. Its also the way towards censorship and ultimately the Inquisition in its worst incarnations.
I think that people on the Left, although I think this is also more common on the Far Left than among liberals, tend to engaging in boycotting certain artists because they do not really believe that anything is not political. In a democracy, you can argue that everything is by nature a political because democracy is about giving the power to people to govern themselves and shape society as they see fit. This means that nothing could ever really be non-political because everything should be in the public sphere. I think this ultimately traces back to the Athenian practice of sending people into exile simply because they weren't liked by enough people. Since the Far Left tends towards an Athenian mode of democracy even if they don't know it than nothing could really be non-political to them. The boycotting of people whose opinions you don't like or who do things you don't like is simply another way of expressing your political opinion.
The other issue is that boycotting artists you don't like is a way to exercise power when you feel powerless. You might not be able to change people but at least you can have some modicum of control by not making their art a part of your life.
So I understand why some people want to boycott artists because of an opinion they hold. At the same time, I think its kind of foolish. Its whats called Aesthetic Stalinism, the idea that art should reflect the correct beliefs or at least the artist should hold the correct beliefs. Requiring all culture to adhere to certain ideological beliefs has a coercive effect on culture and tends to act as a hamper to beauty and greatness. It also creates an unnecessarily decisive society. There isn't going to be a magic period where everybody is in complete agreement about everything important. We need to find a way to kind of get long despite our disagreements on practically everything.
Colonialism is evil but I'm not really sure that the world would be a better place if there wasn't any colonialism. Its through interactions with Europeans that some of the best Western ideas like democracy, equality before the law, and feminism spread along with the material advances of Western medicine, science, and technology. I'm not sure if these would be widespread without colonialism. It all depends on the choices made by non-European nations. Lots of countries attempted reform a la Meiji Japan, the Ottoman Empire, Egypt, China, and Ethiopia but none of them really were as successful as Meiji Japan. In many countries, the reactionaries were very powerful and were able to stymie most attempts at reform or even just technological innovation. Korea and China had trouble modernizing partly because of entrenched reactionary elements.
Its really difficult to predict what a world without colonialism would look like. My guess is that would be very different, some in ways that are very good but others in ways that are very bad.
I'd also like to point out that a prison-like environment is probably not the most conducive one for education. I wouldn't be surprised if grades go up just like crime goes down.
I'd argue that barred windows, metal detectors, and police really have no place in any school, even a really "bad" inner city one. One, for the reasons outlined above. The other thing is because treating people who aren't criminals, who never committed a crime in life like criminals by putting them in a prison-like enviornment is wrong on its face. Just like there is a presumption of innocense in criminal trials, there should be a presumption of non-criminality in people of any age. There is no justification for this even if the school has lots of problems.
Patronage of sculpture isn't a public functions. States of all sorts have been patronizing the arts in order to project their image since states were formed thousands of years ago. The Athenian city-state hosted drama festivals to present their image as a seat of culture and art to the rest of the Greek world and later to the rest of the world. The Roman Republic certainly believed in art as a projection of power.
The Founders also believed in art and architecture as a projection of power. Why else build an entirely new capital city and and fill it with monuments designed to impress and mimic the Roman Republic? I'd say that patronage of sculpture and art is a public function because it falls in within something that states always did.
Jason, wouldn't the border fence fall under one of the legitimate tasks of government according to "small government" theories? Mainly that of national defense/police powers.
I think that we need to get rid of the false dichtomy of small government and big government. A more accurate description might be narrow government and broad government. People who believe in narrow government might give government few responsibilities but they could give government a lot of leeway in those areas. A person who believes in broad government would allow the government to act in more areas of life with varying degrees of leeway.
I agree with this. I think a lot of people go to law school because they see it as a way to earn big bucks. That's partly because only the most glamorous and profitable aspects of law are depicted in media usually. One reason why Win-Win was that depicted a struggling solo practitioner. Campos just wants people to know this.
My God isn't a jerk but lots of people like to argue that he is. I'm really tired of the "wrathfully, jealous God of the Old Testament" vs. the "loving, peaceful God of the New Testament" debate.
If mom and dad aren't aware of how dire the situation was then we are dealing with another problem, neglect. Parents should be at least somewhat aware of how and what their kids are doing. Especially if they believe in radical thinks like unschooling. There are limits.
Eleven years old and barely knows how to read? Holy shit. Eleven is just seven years short of legal adulthood. The kids going to have to kind of take care of herself soon and she can't read? How will she handle college or work? What were her skills be?
I'm really disinclined to approve of people who use their kids as sociological experiments rather than as people who are going to be an adult sooner than latter. Parents should kind of see it that their kids are able to at least somewhat survive in the real world.
I think that the bike war is merely the latest front in the war for or against the cities. Many North American conservatives, and Canadian conservatives seem to be in line with their United States siblings on this, came to decide that the car and the suburb define the good-life according to them. Anything that goes against the good life; cities, density, mixed-use zoning, transit, bikes, and walkability have to be opposed.
Social conservatism has any anti-urban bent everywhere in the world practically. The good people are always in the country or in the small towns while the cities are filled with degenerates, hedonists, and weird bohemians. The French Second Republic became the Third Empire in part because Louise Bonaparte was able to use the anti-urban feelings of French peasants to crown himself Emperor.
How would you determine damages in a sex contract? I guess the person breaking the contract would have to give the money back or pay the cost of dinner or something but in most cases the amount of money paid is going to be on the small claims level. Going to court to seek damages is going to cost much more in legal fees, if your representing yourself pro se, than what you actually paid.
BlaiseP is the winner. This is the prefect reason why you can't enforce sexual contracts. Any attempt to enforce them is the crime of rape and there are no exceptions.
Is your photo selected to maximize the pithiness of your comments? Your facial expression in the photo is really perfect for your prefered type of commentary.
Your first paragraph sums up why people like Bond. Bond represents a certain platonic ideal of manhood that embraces stoicism of a sorts and eschews emotions. A lot of men idealize Bond because they get all the good parts of manhood in their opinion without anything that would come off sissy or egg-heaed to them.
It just seems to be basic snake-oil to me. The modern version of the "I was a 90 pound weakling" ads that used to be in comic books. I speak to women all the time but it doesn't make me a Casanova by a long stretch.
The problem is that a lot of people want a short cut to romantic and sexual success. Men feel especially pressured because in our society a man whose heterosexual by not stallion with the ladies is basically seen as dud. Nearly every movie establishes that the lead man is a hit with women and can bed any at anytime he wants. If he isn't depicted as being successful than a good chunk of the movie is about him becoming successful. The 40-Year Old Virgin is a prime example of this. This can cause a tremendous amount of resentment and feelings of inadequacy in lots of men.
The best solution is probably to remind people that the grass is always greener and that a lot of relationships aren't very happy and are filled with problems. Its kind of dark but taking away the fairytale nature of romance and sex and focusing a bit on the the more negative and troubling aspects could relive at lot of pressure. Yes, it sucks to be lonely but its more common than you think and not everybody in a relationship is enjoying a fairytale love story.
Shit, you might be right. Your more up on the personal lives of Slate writers than I am. I'm really not sure if this is a good thing or a bad thing. Its Prudence that only has a daughter, right?
What do you think of Lazenby's performance as Bond? I thought he was good, a nice in-between Connery's more serious Bond and Moore's light hearted bond. Lazenby's Bond could be serious when called for but you could obviously sense he was having fun to and didn't take things too seriously.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Orson Scott Card and how the personal is too political”
The Far Right also has a very strong tendency to make the personal political. Look at the Evangelical crusade against anything that doesn't conform to their version of Christianity or the need to create an alternative Evangelical version of popular culture, Christian Pop, rather than enjoy regular pop music and go to church every Sunday. More support for my belief that the Far Left and Far Right have a lot more in common than they would like to admit. Like greginak, I think its absurd to make sure that all my cultural preferences mirror my political beliefs. Its too limiting and possibly dangerous. It dehumanizes people who disagree with you. Its also the way towards censorship and ultimately the Inquisition in its worst incarnations.
"
I think that people on the Left, although I think this is also more common on the Far Left than among liberals, tend to engaging in boycotting certain artists because they do not really believe that anything is not political. In a democracy, you can argue that everything is by nature a political because democracy is about giving the power to people to govern themselves and shape society as they see fit. This means that nothing could ever really be non-political because everything should be in the public sphere. I think this ultimately traces back to the Athenian practice of sending people into exile simply because they weren't liked by enough people. Since the Far Left tends towards an Athenian mode of democracy even if they don't know it than nothing could really be non-political to them. The boycotting of people whose opinions you don't like or who do things you don't like is simply another way of expressing your political opinion.
The other issue is that boycotting artists you don't like is a way to exercise power when you feel powerless. You might not be able to change people but at least you can have some modicum of control by not making their art a part of your life.
So I understand why some people want to boycott artists because of an opinion they hold. At the same time, I think its kind of foolish. Its whats called Aesthetic Stalinism, the idea that art should reflect the correct beliefs or at least the artist should hold the correct beliefs. Requiring all culture to adhere to certain ideological beliefs has a coercive effect on culture and tends to act as a hamper to beauty and greatness. It also creates an unnecessarily decisive society. There isn't going to be a magic period where everybody is in complete agreement about everything important. We need to find a way to kind of get long despite our disagreements on practically everything.
On “If Criminals are What You Want, Criminals are What You’ll Get (UPDATED!)”
Yes, I imagine that the people who enact these policies do not send their kids to schools that double as prisons.
On “The Border Fence: A Big-Government Program Conservatives Happen to Love”
Colonialism is evil but I'm not really sure that the world would be a better place if there wasn't any colonialism. Its through interactions with Europeans that some of the best Western ideas like democracy, equality before the law, and feminism spread along with the material advances of Western medicine, science, and technology. I'm not sure if these would be widespread without colonialism. It all depends on the choices made by non-European nations. Lots of countries attempted reform a la Meiji Japan, the Ottoman Empire, Egypt, China, and Ethiopia but none of them really were as successful as Meiji Japan. In many countries, the reactionaries were very powerful and were able to stymie most attempts at reform or even just technological innovation. Korea and China had trouble modernizing partly because of entrenched reactionary elements.
Its really difficult to predict what a world without colonialism would look like. My guess is that would be very different, some in ways that are very good but others in ways that are very bad.
On “If Criminals are What You Want, Criminals are What You’ll Get (UPDATED!)”
I'd also like to point out that a prison-like environment is probably not the most conducive one for education. I wouldn't be surprised if grades go up just like crime goes down.
"
I'd argue that barred windows, metal detectors, and police really have no place in any school, even a really "bad" inner city one. One, for the reasons outlined above. The other thing is because treating people who aren't criminals, who never committed a crime in life like criminals by putting them in a prison-like enviornment is wrong on its face. Just like there is a presumption of innocense in criminal trials, there should be a presumption of non-criminality in people of any age. There is no justification for this even if the school has lots of problems.
On “The Border Fence: A Big-Government Program Conservatives Happen to Love”
Patronage of sculpture isn't a public functions. States of all sorts have been patronizing the arts in order to project their image since states were formed thousands of years ago. The Athenian city-state hosted drama festivals to present their image as a seat of culture and art to the rest of the Greek world and later to the rest of the world. The Roman Republic certainly believed in art as a projection of power.
The Founders also believed in art and architecture as a projection of power. Why else build an entirely new capital city and and fill it with monuments designed to impress and mimic the Roman Republic? I'd say that patronage of sculpture and art is a public function because it falls in within something that states always did.
"
Jason, wouldn't the border fence fall under one of the legitimate tasks of government according to "small government" theories? Mainly that of national defense/police powers.
I think that we need to get rid of the false dichtomy of small government and big government. A more accurate description might be narrow government and broad government. People who believe in narrow government might give government few responsibilities but they could give government a lot of leeway in those areas. A person who believes in broad government would allow the government to act in more areas of life with varying degrees of leeway.
On “Deception With Statistics”
I agree with this. I think a lot of people go to law school because they see it as a way to earn big bucks. That's partly because only the most glamorous and profitable aspects of law are depicted in media usually. One reason why Win-Win was that depicted a struggling solo practitioner. Campos just wants people to know this.
On “Is Your God a Jerk?”
My God isn't a jerk but lots of people like to argue that he is. I'm really tired of the "wrathfully, jealous God of the Old Testament" vs. the "loving, peaceful God of the New Testament" debate.
On “How To Give Advice”
If mom and dad aren't aware of how dire the situation was then we are dealing with another problem, neglect. Parents should be at least somewhat aware of how and what their kids are doing. Especially if they believe in radical thinks like unschooling. There are limits.
"
Eleven years old and barely knows how to read? Holy shit. Eleven is just seven years short of legal adulthood. The kids going to have to kind of take care of herself soon and she can't read? How will she handle college or work? What were her skills be?
I'm really disinclined to approve of people who use their kids as sociological experiments rather than as people who are going to be an adult sooner than latter. Parents should kind of see it that their kids are able to at least somewhat survive in the real world.
On “Bicycles, a proxy for the culture wars”
I think that the bike war is merely the latest front in the war for or against the cities. Many North American conservatives, and Canadian conservatives seem to be in line with their United States siblings on this, came to decide that the car and the suburb define the good-life according to them. Anything that goes against the good life; cities, density, mixed-use zoning, transit, bikes, and walkability have to be opposed.
Social conservatism has any anti-urban bent everywhere in the world practically. The good people are always in the country or in the small towns while the cities are filled with degenerates, hedonists, and weird bohemians. The French Second Republic became the Third Empire in part because Louise Bonaparte was able to use the anti-urban feelings of French peasants to crown himself Emperor.
On “Welcome to Ordinary Times”
I like that we have a search function now though. Thanks.
On “Linda Holmes Discovers The Joy Of Bad Science Fiction Movies”
All I have to say is that nothing can beat "Flash Gordon" for enjoyable bad cinema, the one where Queen did the entire soundtrack.
On “Welcome to Ordinary Times”
Testing, testing.
On “Sex and Contracts”
How would you determine damages in a sex contract? I guess the person breaking the contract would have to give the money back or pay the cost of dinner or something but in most cases the amount of money paid is going to be on the small claims level. Going to court to seek damages is going to cost much more in legal fees, if your representing yourself pro se, than what you actually paid.
"
BlaiseP is the winner. This is the prefect reason why you can't enforce sexual contracts. Any attempt to enforce them is the crime of rape and there are no exceptions.
"
Is your photo selected to maximize the pithiness of your comments? Your facial expression in the photo is really perfect for your prefered type of commentary.
On “July Leaguecast: The Role of Men in the 21st Century”
Your first paragraph sums up why people like Bond. Bond represents a certain platonic ideal of manhood that embraces stoicism of a sorts and eschews emotions. A lot of men idealize Bond because they get all the good parts of manhood in their opinion without anything that would come off sissy or egg-heaed to them.
"
I agree with this, just listen somewhat closely and say something funny or intelligent in response to someone in the group says. It usually works.
"
So that Diana Rigg doesn't look like an idiot whose talking to herself and having some rather vivid hallucinations.
"
It just seems to be basic snake-oil to me. The modern version of the "I was a 90 pound weakling" ads that used to be in comic books. I speak to women all the time but it doesn't make me a Casanova by a long stretch.
The problem is that a lot of people want a short cut to romantic and sexual success. Men feel especially pressured because in our society a man whose heterosexual by not stallion with the ladies is basically seen as dud. Nearly every movie establishes that the lead man is a hit with women and can bed any at anytime he wants. If he isn't depicted as being successful than a good chunk of the movie is about him becoming successful. The 40-Year Old Virgin is a prime example of this. This can cause a tremendous amount of resentment and feelings of inadequacy in lots of men.
The best solution is probably to remind people that the grass is always greener and that a lot of relationships aren't very happy and are filled with problems. Its kind of dark but taking away the fairytale nature of romance and sex and focusing a bit on the the more negative and troubling aspects could relive at lot of pressure. Yes, it sucks to be lonely but its more common than you think and not everybody in a relationship is enjoying a fairytale love story.
"
Shit, you might be right. Your more up on the personal lives of Slate writers than I am. I'm really not sure if this is a good thing or a bad thing. Its Prudence that only has a daughter, right?
"
What do you think of Lazenby's performance as Bond? I thought he was good, a nice in-between Connery's more serious Bond and Moore's light hearted bond. Lazenby's Bond could be serious when called for but you could obviously sense he was having fun to and didn't take things too seriously.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.